' 


DEBATERS’  HANDBOOK  SERIES 


CONSERVATION  OF 
NATURAL  RESOURCES 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


Debaters’  Handbook  Series 

American  Merchant  Marine 
Debaters’  Manual  (2d  ed.  enl.) 

Capital  Punishment  (3d  ed.  rev.) 
Central  Bank  of  the  United  States 
Child  Labor  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

City  Manager  Plan 

Commission  Plan  of  Municipal  Govern¬ 
ment  (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Compulsory  Arbitration  of  Industrial 
Disputes  (Supp.  to  2d  ed.)  50c 
Compulsory  Insurance 
Compulsory  Military  Training 
Conservation  of  Natural  Resources 
Direct  Primaries  (4th  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Election  of  U.  S.  Senators  (2d  ed.) 
Employment  of  Women 
Federal  Control  of  Interstate-  Corpora¬ 
tions  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Free  Trade  vs.  Protection 
Government  Ownership  of  Railroads 
(3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Government  Ownership  of  Railroads 
Vol.  II  .  , 

Government  Ownership  of  Telegraph 
and  Telephone 
Immigration  (2d  ed.) 

Income  Tax  (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Initiative  and  Referendum  (3d  ed.  rev.) 
Minimum  Wage 

Monroe  Doctrine  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Mothers’  Pensions 
Municipal  Ownership  (3d  ed.)  $1.50 
National  Defense  Vol.  I 
National  Defense.  Vol.  II 
Open  versus  Closed  Shop  (2d  ed.) 
Parcels  Post  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 
Prohibition  (2d  ed.) 

Recall  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Reciprocity 

Single  Tax  (2d  ed.) 

Trade  Unions  (2d  ed.  enl.) 
Unemployment 

Woman  Suffrage  (3d  ed.  rev.) 

World  Peace  (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Other  titles  in  preparation 
Each  volume,  unless  otherwise  .noted, 
$1.25  net 


Debaters’  Handbook  Series 


SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ON  THE 

CONSERVATION  OF 
NATURAL  RESOURCES 


COMPILED  BY 

C.  E.  FANNING 


SQSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
gBKSTNUT  HILL,  MASS, 


THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 
NEW  YORK 
1919 


* 


1 0 1 876 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE 


Until  a  few  years  ago,  the  impression  was  prevalent  that 
water,  forests  and  the  ores  in  the  earth  were  abundantly  plenti¬ 
ful  and  thus  could  be  lavishly  used.  When  the  necessity  of 
conservation  was  made  evident,  far-sighted  men  started  a  cam¬ 
paign  of  public  education  and  the  subject  became  suddenly 
prominent  in  the  magazines.  But  like  all  schemes  started  in 
theory  and  later  applied  in  practice,  this  one  developed  an  un¬ 
expected  phase,  in  this  case  the  conditions  in  the  newer  western 
states  determining  its  form.  Out  of  this  situation  grew  two 
plans  of  conservation,  one  under  Federal  control  and  the  other 
under  State  control. 

The  issues  are  so  well  defined  that  the  subject  is  an  appro¬ 
priate  one  for  debate  and  in  order  to  supply  the  needs  of  de¬ 
baters,  as  well  as  general  students,  this  volume  has  been  pre¬ 
pared  for  the  Debaters’  Handbook  Series. 

In  conformity  with  the  series  the  book  contains  a  brief  based 
on  the  best  arguments  available,  a  bibliography,  and  articles  re¬ 
printed  entirely  or  in  part  and  grouped  into  general,  affirmative 
and  negative  sections. 

January,  1913. 


. 


• 

CONTENTS 

Brief 


Introduction  .  ix 

Affirmative  .  ix 

Negative  .  x 

Bibliography 

Bibliographies  .  xi 

General  works  .  xi 

Magazines 

General  .  xii 

Affirmative  .  xiii 

Negative  .  xiv 


General  Discussion 

Review  of  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  on 

Water-Power  Development  in  the  United  States . 

. American  Economic  Review  i 

Taft,  William  Howard . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  2 

Davidson,  James  H . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  6 
Rogers,  Henry  Wade.  The  Constitution  and  the  New  Feder¬ 
alism . North  American  Review  6 

Knapp,  George  L.  Other  Side  of  Conservation . 

. North  American  Review  21 

Pinchot,  Gifford.  The  A  B  C  of  Conservation . Outlook  39 

Is  there  a  “Power  Trust”? . Review  of  Reviews  44 

Affirmative  Discussion 

Wright,  Charles  Edward.  The  Scope  of  State  and  Federal 

Legislation  Concerning  the  Use  of  Waters . 

. . . Annals  of  the  American  Academy  49 

Garfield,  James  R.  Conference  of  Governors,  Proceedings  67 
State  or  National  Conservation? . Electrical  World  68 


Vlll 


CONTENTS 


Riesenberg,  H.  Plea  for  Nationalization  of  our  Natural  Re¬ 
sources . Forestry  and  Irrigation  70 

Federal  Conservation  Clinched . Literary  Digest  71 

Roosevelt,  Theodore  . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  73 

Johns,  William  Douglas . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  77 

Forests  and  Water  Powers:  Oregon . Outlook  79 

Save  the  Nation’s  Property . Outlook  79 

National  Conservation . Outlook  80 

Water  Power:  National  versus  State  Control . Outlook  81 

Victory  for  Conservation . Outlook  82 

Graves,  Henry  S.  Shall  the  States  Own  the  Forest? . 

.  Outlook  84 

Negative  Discussion 

Gooding,  Frank  R. ...  Conference  of  Governors,  Proceedings  93 

Mondell,  F.  W . Congressional  Record  96 

Smith,  Sylvester  C . Congressional  Record  97 

Taylor,  Edward  T . Congressional  Record  100 

Letter  of  Arthur  J.  Shaw  to  Senator  Wesley  L.  Jones . 

. Congressional  Record  103 

Attitude  of  Seattle  Chamber  of  Commerce  on  Conservation 

. Congressional  Record  109 

Borah,  William  E.... . ..Congressional  Record  115 

Taylor,  Edward  T . Congressional  Record  120 

Shafroth,  John  F.,  at  the  Trans-Mississippi  Commercial 
Congress . Congressional  Record  126 

Scott,  Leslie  M.  Why  East  and  West  Differ  on  the  Conser¬ 
vation  Problem . Independent  131 

Are  We  Conservation-Crazy? . Literary  Digest  135 

Norris,  Edwin  Lee . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  137 

Brooks,  Bryant  Butler . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  140 

Hill,  James  J . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  143 

Short,  Frank  H . ' . . 

....Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings  148 


BRIEF 


I 


Resolved,  That  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government  should 
be  paramount  to  that  of  the  States  in  the  conservation  of  natural 
resources,  limited  to  forests,  water-power,  and  minerals. 

Introduction 

I.  It  is  granted  that  our  natural  resources  are  the  possession 
of  all  the  people. 

II.  These  resources  should  be  developed  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people  and  protected  from  monopoly  by  large  corpora¬ 
tions. 

III.  The  question  for  debate  becomes : 

A.  Has  the  State  or  Nation  the  paramount  right  to  direct 

conservation? 

B.  Under  which  control  is  it  more  expedient  to  develop 

the  resources? 

Affirmative 

I.  Conservation  is  properly  a  function  of  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment. 

A.  Resources  belong  to  all  the  people  of  the  Nation. 

B.  The  Nation  has  the  right  to  retain  the  control. 

II.  Conservation  projects  on  rivers  are  often  interstate  ques¬ 
tions. 

A.  The  development  of  a  water-power  in  one  State  may 

cripple  a  water-power  in  another  State. 

B.  The  developing  of  one  water-power  may  be  subject  to 

conflicting  State  laws. 

C.  Reclamation  projects  often  involve  storing  flood 

waters  in  one  State  to  use  in  another. 

D.  The  experience  of  Switzerland  has  proved  that  Na¬ 

tional  control  is  necessary. 


X 


BRIEF 


III.  The  Federal  Government  can  more  wisely  supervise  con¬ 

servation. 

A.  A  uniform  policy  is  needed. 

B.  The  majority  of  States  have  made  a  failure  of  con¬ 

servation. 

C.  Conservation  can  be  more  economically  supervised  by 

the  Nation. 

D.  Corporations  can  control  State  governments. 

IV.  States  can  disregard  the  interests  of  the  Nation  at  large. 

Negative 

I.  Conservation  is  a  sovereign  right  of  the  State. 

A.  Neither  the  Constitution  nor  Statutes  give  the  power 

to  the  Federal  Government. 

B.  A  State’s  powers  are  sufficient  to  handle  conservation 

problems. 

II.  Conservation  is  a  local  question. 

III.  States  are  capable  of  wisely  directing  conservation. 

A.  They  know  local  conditions  better. 

B.  Several  States  have  already  successfully  handled  con¬ 

servation  problems. 

C.  A  State  can  guard  the  people’s  rights  better  than  the 

Nation. 

D.  The  Federal  conservation  policy  has  not  been  a  suc¬ 

cess. 

IV.  Federal  control  is  unjust. 

A.  It  involves  bureaucratic  methods. 

B.  It  is  taxing  a  few  for  the  benefit  of  the  many. 

C.  The  new  States  should  have  the  same  right  to  their 

resources  as  the  older  States  had  to  theirs. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A  star  (*)  preceding  a  reference  indicates  that  the  entire  article  or  a 

part  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in  this  volume. 

Bibliographies 

Indiana  State  Library  Bulletin.  Vol.  7,  no.  5.  S.  ’12.  Guide  to 
the  Study  of  Conservation. 

Robbins,  E.  C.  High  School  Debate  Book.  pp.  75-8.  McClurg, 
Chicago,  1911. 

Brief,  pp.  65-75. 

Washington  State  Libraty.  Select  List  of  References  on  Con¬ 
servation  of  Natural  Resources.  Olympia,  Wash.  1911. 

General  Works 

*Conference  of  Governors  in  the  White  House,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  Proceedings.  May  13-15,  1908.  (60th  Congress,  2d 

Session,  House  doc.  v.  128.  Serial  no.  5538.) 

Hill,  J.  J.  Highways  of  Progress,  pp.  309-28.  Doubleday,  New 
York.  1910. 

National  Conservation  Commission,  Report.  February  1909. 
(60th  Congress,  2d  Session,  Senate  doc.  676.) 

National  Conservation  Congress,  First,  held  at  Seattle,  Ag.  26- 
28,  1909.  25c.  National  Conservation  Congress.  Indian¬ 

apolis,  Ind. 

^National  Conservation  Congress,  Second,  held  at  St.  Paul, 
S.  5-8,  1910.  $1.  National  Conservation  Congress,  Indian¬ 

apolis,  Ind. 

National  Conservation  Congress,  Third,  held  at  Kansas  City, 
Mo.  S.  25-27,  1911.  $1.  National  Conservation  Congress, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Nichols,  Egbert  Ray,  ed.  Intercollegiate  Debates.  Volume  II. 
PP-  235-80.  Hinds,  Noble  &  Eldredge,  New  York.  1912. 


Prints  good  arguments  for  both  affirmative  and  negative. 


Xll 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Pinchot,  Gifford.  Fight  for  Conservation.  Doubleday,  Page  & 
Co.,  New  York.  1910. 

Van  Hise,  C.  R.  Conservation  of  Natural  Resources  in  the 
United  States.  Macmillan,  New  York.  1910. 

Excellent  summary  of  the  control  of  water  power  in  foreign  countries. 
United  States  and  different  states,  pp.  133-61. 

Magazines 

General 

♦American  Economic  Review.  2:  624-5.  S.  ’12.  Review  of  the 
Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  on  Water- 
Power  Development  in  the  United  States.  1912. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  33 :  497-710.  My.  ’09.  Con¬ 
servation  of  Natural  Resources. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  33:  583-96.  My.  ’09.  Neces¬ 
sity  for  State  or  Federal  Regulation  of  Water  Power  De¬ 
velopment.  Charles  Whiting  Baker. 

Chautauquan.  55:  18-126.  Je.  ’09.  Conservation  of  Natural 
Resources. 

Congressional  Record.  45 :  362-6.  Ja.  6,  ’10.  Extract  from  Re¬ 
port  of  Hon.  R.  A.  Ballinger,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  N.  10, 
’09;  An  Address  Delivered  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin 
by  James  R.  Garfield;  Address  of  Mr.  Gifford  Pinchot  be¬ 
fore  the  People’s  Forum,  D.  26,  ’09. 

Congressional  Record.  45:  621-4.  Ja.  14,  ’10.  [or  680-2.  Ja.  17, 
’10.]  Message  of  President  Taft  on  Conservation  of  Natural 
Resources. 

LaFollette’s.  2:  7-8.  S.  17,  ’10.  Arousing  a  New  Nationalism: 
Conservation  Congress  Declares  for  Equality  of  Opportunity. 
John  R.  Commons. 

Literary  Digest.  41 :  425-8.  S.  17,  ’10.  State  or  National  Con¬ 
servation  ? 

Comments  of  papers  on  and  quotations  from  speeches  at  St.  Paul 
Conservation  Congress. 

Literary  Digest.  44:  972-3.  My.  11,  ’12.  Danger  of  a  Water- 
Power  Trust. 

Summary  of  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  on 
Water-Power  Development  in  the  United  States.  1912. 

♦North  American  Review.  188:  321-35.  S.  ’08.  The  Constitu¬ 
tion  and  the  New  Federalism.  Henry  Wade  Rogers. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xui 


*North  American  Review.  191 :  465-81.  Ap.  To.  Other  Side 
of  Conservation.  George  L.  Knapp. 

Reprinted  in  Congressional  Record.  45:  6622-4.  My.  19,  ’io. 

Outlook.  87:  291-4.  O.  12,  ’07.  Conservation  of  Natural  Re¬ 
sources.  Gifford  Pinchot. 

Outlook.  88 :  582-4.  Mr.  14,  ’08.  Government  Control  of  Water 
Power. 

Outlook.  88:  760.  Ap.  4,  ’08.  Water  Rights  and  the  Nation. 
Outlook.  90:  142-3.  S.  26,  '08.  Preservation  of  Water  Powers. 

Indicates  how  water  power  development  is  prevented  by  occupation  of 
valleys  by  railroads. 

♦Outlook.  93 :  770-2.  D.  4,  ’09.  A  B  C  of  Conservation.  Gifford 
Pinchot. 

Outlook.  94:  99-100.  Ja.  15,  ’10.  Federal  Control  of  Water 
Power. 

Outlook.  96:  375.  O.  15,  To.  Lost — a  Policy.  Philip  P.  Wells. 
Science,  n.  s.  34:  813-25.  D.  15,  ’ll.  Principles  of  Water- 
Power  Development.  W.  J.  McGee. 

♦Review  of  Reviews.  41 :  14-7-  Ja.  ’10.  Is  There  a  “Power 
Trust”? 

Affirmative 

♦Annals  of  American  Academy.  33 :  566-82.  My.  ’09.  Scope  of 
State  and  Federal  Legislation  Concerning  the  Use  of  Waters. 
Charles  Edward  Wright. 

Electrical  World.  51 :  542-3.  Mr.  14,  ’08.  Conservation  of  Hy- 

y 

draulic  Resources. 

♦Electrical  World.  56:  651.  S.  22,  ’10.  State  or  National  Con¬ 
servation? 

♦Forestry  and  Irrigation.  14:  419-24.  Ag.  ’08.  Plea  for  Nation¬ 
alization  of  Our  Natural  Resources.  H.  Riesenberg. 

♦Literary  Digest.  42:  932.  My.  13,  Ti.  Federal  Conservation 
Clinched. 

McClure’s.  33:  35-9.  My.  ’09.  National  Water  Power  Trust. 
Judson  C.  Welliver. 

Nation.  88:  80.  Ja.  28,  ’09.  “Pinchotism.” 

Outlook.  88:  898-9.  Ap.  25,  ’08.  Water  Power  Wealth. 
♦Outlook.  92:  910.  Ag.  21,  ’09.  Forests  and  Water  Powers: 
Oregon. 

Outlook.  92:  910-1.  Ag.  21,  ’09.  Mr.  Pinchot  and  the  Federal 
Water  Powers. 


XIV 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


*Outlook.  94:  975-6.  Ap.  30,  To.  Save  the  Nation’s  Property. 
^Outlook.  95 :  57-9.  My.  14,  ’io.  National  Conservation. 
*Outlook.  95:  94-5.  My.  21,  ’10.  Water  Power:  National  versus 
State  Control. 

Outlook.  95 :  864-5.  Ag.  20,  ’io.  A  Financier  on  Conservation. 
Outlook.  96:  12-4.  S.  3,  ’10.  National  Conservation. 

Outlook.  96:  60-2.  S.  10,  ’10.  The  President  and  Mr.  Roosevelt 
on  Conservation. 

Outlook.  96:  90-1.  S.  17,  ’10.  Conservation:  Federal  or  State? 
^Outlook.  98:  131-2.  My.  27,  ’ll.  Victory  for  Conservation. 
^Outlook.  102:  935-44.  D.  28,  ’12.  Shall  the  States  Own  the 
Forests?  H.  S.  Graves. 

Putnam’s  Magazine.  7 :  259-70.  D.  ’09.  What  Conservation 
Means  to  the  Nation’s  Progress  and  Prosperity.  Day  Allen 
Willey. 

Review  of  Reviews.  41 :  47-8.  Ja.  ’10.  Water-Power  Sites  on 
the  Public  Domain.  Richard  A.  Ballinger. 

World’s  Work.  21 :  13607-11.  N.  ’10.  Fight  for  Conservation 
Arthur  W.  Page. 

Negative 

*Congressional  Record.  45 :  265-70.  D.  20,  ’09.  F.  W.  Mondell. 
Congressional  Record.  45:  393-9.  Ja.  7,  To.  J.  A.  Martin. 
*Congressional  Record.  45:  417-22.  Ja.  8,  To.  S.  C.  Smith. 
*Congressional  Record.  45 :  1349-54.  F.  L  To.  Edward  T. 
Taylor. 

^Congressional  Record.  45:  1476-7.  F.  4,  To.  Letter  of  Arthur 
J.  Shaw. 

*Congressional  Record.  45 :  4254.  Ap.  5,  To.  Attitude  of  Seattle 
Chamber  of  Commerce  on  Conservation. 

Congressional  Record.  45:  5066-73.  Ap.  20,  To.  Edward  T. 
Taylor. 

Congressional  Record.  45:  6521-4.  My.  19,  To.  Edward  T. 
Taylor. 

*Congressional  Record.  45 :  8509-30.  Je.  20,  To.  William  E. 
Borah. 

Congressional  Record.  45:  8880-92.  Je.  24,  To.  T.  E.  Burton. 
*Congressional  Record.  46:  4016-20.  Mr.  2,  ’ll.  Edward  T. 
Taylor. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


xv 


Congressional  Record.  48:  Appendix  3-6.  D.  9,  Ti.  Reprint 
of  speech  of  John  F.  Shafroth  of  Colorado,  at  the  Trans- 
Mississippi  Commercial  Congress  af  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  N. 

15,  ’ll- 

Congressional  Record.  48:  6403-7.  My.  14,  Y2. 

Debate  upon  Agricultural  Bill  has  criticism  of  the  Forestry  Bureau’s 
policy  of  conservation. 

Harper’s  Weekly.  54:  28.  Ap.  2,  To.  Conservation  of  the 
Public  Domain.  Franklin  Escher. 

^Independent.  68:  697-9.  Mr.  31,  To.  Why  East  and  West 
Differ  on  the  Conservation  Problem.  L.  M.  Scott. 

^Literary  Digest.  41:  967-8.  N.  26,  To.  Are  We  Conservation- 
Crazy? 

North  American  Review.  192 :  493-503.  O,  To.  Public  and  the 
Conservation  Policy.  J.  R.  McKee. 

Outlook.  101 :  990-1.  Ag.  31,  ’12.  Congress:  The  Democrats 
and  Water  Power. 

Outlook.  102:  665-9.  N.  23,  ’12.  Louis  Glavis  in  California. 
Harold  French. 

Describes  California’s  successful  method  of  conserving  its  natural  re¬ 
sources. 


» 


r 


' 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON  THE 
CONSERVATION  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES 


GENERAL  DISCUSSION 


American  Economic  Review.  2:  624-5.  September,  1912. 

Review  of  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  on 

Water-Power  Development  in  the  United  States.  1912. 

This  significant  report  consists  of  a  summary  (34  pp.) 
and  a  detailed  report  in  three  parts:  Physical  conditions 
and  economic  aspects  of  water-power  (58  pp.) ;  Concentration 
of  ownership  and  control  (96  pp.);  Water-power  and  the 
public  (20  pp.).  It  is  concerned  with  developed  “commer¬ 
cial”  power — power  generated  for  sale — and  presents  the 
most  complete  and  reliable  information  on  the  subject  now 
available. 

The  Bureau  of  Corporations  computed  in  June,  1911, 
a  total  developed  water-power  of  6,000,000  h.  p.,  represent¬ 
ing:  “commercial”  power,  2,961,549  h.  p.;  “manufacturing” 
power,  1,054,578  h.  p.;  total  power  developments  of  less  than 
1,000  h.  p.  each,  ’2,000,000  h.  p.  This  6,000,000  h.  p.  repre¬ 
sents  about  one  fourth  the  estimated  minimum  and  one  eighth 
the  estimated  maximum  potential  h.  p.  of  the  United  States. 

The  Bureau  finds  a  marked  geographical  concentration 
of  developed  water-power.  Nearly  fifty  per  cent  of  the 
“commercial”  power  is  in  five  states  (Cal.,  14;  N.  Y.,  13; 
Wash.,  10;  Penn.,  6;  S.  C.,  5)  and  nearly  ninety  per  cent 
of  the  “manufacturing”  power  is  in  New  England  and  four 
additional  states  (N.  Y.,  30;  New  England  states,  36;  Minn, 
and  Wis.,  17;  S.  C.,  5). 


2 


CONSERVATION  OF 


The  most  significant  findings  of  the  Bureau  are  concerned 
with  concentration  of  ownership  and  control  of  developed 
water-power. 

In  California  the  bulk  of  the  power  produced  in  the  northern 
half  of  the  State  is  controlled  by  a  single  interest,  and  that  in  the 
southern  half  by  only  two  companies,  in  Montana  two  companies 
control  96  per  cent  of  ail  the  developed  power  of  the  State;  and 
in  Washingion  a  single  interest  controls  the  power  situation  in 
the  Puget  Sound  region,  while  another  interest,  more  or  less 
closely  affiliated  with  it,  controls  the  developed  power  elsewhere 
in  the  State.  All  the  developed  power  in  the  vicinity  of  Denver, 
Colo.,  and  nearly  70  per  cent  of  the  total  developed  power  of  that 
state  is  controlled  by  one  interest.  In  South  Carolina  one  cor¬ 
poration  owns  75  per  cent  of  the  developed  commercial  power, 
while  in  North  Carolina  45  per  cent  of  such  power,  developed 
and  under  construction,  is  controlled  by  a  single  interest.  One 
group  of  imerests  practically  controls  58  per  cent  of  all  the  com¬ 
mercial  power,  developed  and  under  construction,  in  Georgia.  In 
the  lower  peninsula  of  Michigan  a  single  group  owns  73  per  cent 
of  all  such  power.  The  great  development  of  Niagara  Falls  on 
the  American  side  is  controlled  by  only  two  companies. 

The  local  concentration  of  water-power,  just  described,  by  no 
means  reveals  the  full  extent  of  concentration  of  ownership.  A 
few  large  interests  have  acquired  such  control  over  water-power 
as  to  bring  about  a  still  greater  concentration.  .  .  .  This  broader 
field  of  control  has  also  included  all  sorts  of  public-service  corpo¬ 
rations  regardless  of  whether  these  involve  water-power  or  not. 

Some  idea  of  the  extent  of  such  concentration  of  control  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  of  the  total  “commercial”  water-power  of 
2,961,549  h.  p.,  developed  and  under  construction,  in  the  United 
States  .  .  .  over  1,800,000  h.  p.  is  controlled  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent — but  not  absolutely  in  every  case — by  10  groups  of  inter¬ 
ests.  .  .  .  Seventeen  interests  or  groups  of  interests  control  or 
strongly  influence  more  than  2,000,000  h.  p.  of  commercial  water¬ 
power,  developed  and  under  construction,  or  more  than  70  per 
cent  of  all  such  power  in  the  United  States. 

These  facts,  the  Bureau  observes,  present  problems  of 
vital  importance  to  the  public  welfare,  and  demand  a  water¬ 
power  policy  involving  three  fundamental  propositions:  the 
best  development  of  the  resource;  the  protection  of  the  con¬ 
sumer;  the  reservation,  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  public, 
of  its  proper  share  in  the  advantages  inherent  in  the  natural 
resource  itself.  The  Bureau  believes  that  it  is  impracticable 
to  regulate  the  price  of  water-power  by  itself,  and  that  the 
main  problem  of  the  public  interest  attaches  to  the  power 
site.  H.  S.  Person. 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

Pages  14-34.  William  Howard  Taft. 

Suggestions  have  been  made  that  the  United  States  ought 
to  aid  in  the  drainage  of  swamp  lands  belonging  to  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


3 


States  or  private  owners,  because,  if  drained,  they  would  be 
exceedingly  valuable  for  agriculture  and  contribute  to  the 
general  welfare  by  extending  the  area  of  cultivation.  I 
deprecate  the  agitation  in  favor  of  such  legislation.  It  is 
inviting  the  general  Government  into  contribution  from  its 
treasury  toward  enterprises  that  should  be  conducted 
either  by  private  capital  or  at  the  instance  of  the  State. 
In  these  days  there  is  a  disposition  to  look  too  much  to 
the  Federal  Government  for  everything.  I  am  liberal  in 
the  construction  of  the  Constitution  with  reference  to  Fed¬ 
eral  power;  but  I  am  firmly  convinced  that  the  only  safe 
course  for  us  to  pursue  is  to  hold  fast  to  the  limitations  of 
the  Constitution  and  to  regard  as  sacred  the  powers  of 
the  States.  We  have  made  wonderful  progress,  and  at  the 
same  time  have  preserved  with  judicious  exactness  the  re¬ 
strictions  of  the  Constitution.  There  is  an  easy  way  in 
which  the  Constitution  can  be  violated  by  Congress  without 
judicial  inhibition,  to-wit,  by  appropriations  from  the  Na¬ 
tional  treasury  for  unconstitutional  purposes.  It  will  be  a 
sorry  day  for  this  country  if  the  time  ever  comes  when  our 
fundamental  compact  shall  be  habitually  disregarded  in  this 
manner. 

However  this  may  be,  it  is  the  plain  duty  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  see  to  it  that  in  the  utilization  and  development 
of  all  this  immense  amount  of  water-power,  conditions  shall 
be  imposed  that  will  prevent  monopoly,  and  will  prevent 
extortionate  charges  which  are  the  accompaniment  of  mo¬ 
nopoly.  The  difficulty  of  adjusting  the  matter  is  accentu¬ 
ated  by  the  relation  of  the  power  sites  to  the  water,  the  fall 
and  flow  of  which  create  the  power. 

In  the  States  where  these  sites  are,  the  riparian  owner 
does  not  control  or  own  the  power  in  the  water  which  flows 
past  his  land.  That  power  is  under  the  control  and  within 
the  grant  of  the  State,  and  generally  the  rule  is  that  the 
first  user  is  entitled  to  the  enjoyment.  Now,  the  possession 
of  the  bank  or  water-power  site  over  which  the  water  is 
to  be  conveyed  in  order  to  make  the  power  useful,  gives  to 
its  owner  an  advantage  and  a  certain  kind  of  control  over 
the  use  of  the  water-power,  and  it  is  proposed  that  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  in  dealing  with  its  own  lands  should  use  this  ad- 


4 


CONSERVATION  OF 


vantage  and  lease  lands  for  power  sites  to  those  who  would 
develop  the  power,  and  impose  conditions  on  the  leasehold 
with  reference  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  rates  at  which 
the  power,  when  transmuted,  is  to  be  furnished  to  the  pub¬ 
lic,  and  forbidding  the  union  of  the  particular  power  with 
a  combination  of  others  made  for  the  purpose  of  monopoly 
by  forbidding  assignment  of  the  lease  save  by  consent  of 
the  Government.  Serious  difficulties  are  anticipated  by 
some  in  such  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  general  Govern¬ 
ment,  because  of  the  sovereign  control  of  the  State  over  the 
water-power  in  its  natural  condition,  and  the  mere  propri¬ 
etorship  of  the  Government  in  the  riparian  lands. 

It  is  contended  that  through  its  mere  proprietary  right 
in  the  site  the  central  Government  has  no  power  to  attempt 
to  exercise  police  jurisdiction  with  reference  to  how  the 
water-power  in  a  river  owned  and  controlled  by  the  State 
shall  be  used,  and  that  it  is  a  violation  of  the  State’s  rights. 
I  question  the  validity  of  this  objection.  The  Government 
may  impose  any  conditions  that  it  chooses  in  its  lease 
of  its  own  property,  even  though  it  may  have  the  same  pur¬ 
pose  and  in  effect  accomplish  just  what  the  State  would  ac¬ 
complish  by  the  exercise  of  its  sovereignty.  That  is  shown 
frequently  in  leases  of  houses  containing  a  covenant  against 
the  use  of  the  house  for  that  which  under  the  law  of  the 
State  is  an  unlawful  use;  and  nevertheless,  no  one  has  ever 
contended  that  that  condition,  though  it  be  for  the  stricter 
enforcement  of  the  State  law,  is  without  the  power  of  the 
lessor  as  a  proprietor  of  the  land  which  he  is  leasing. 

There  are  those  (and  the  Director  of  the  Geological  Sur¬ 
vey,  Mr.  Smith,  who  has  given  a  great  deal  of  attention  to 
this  matter,  is  one  of  them)  who  insist  that  this  matter  of 
transmuting  water-power  into  electricity  which  can  be  con¬ 
veyed  all  over  the  country  and  across  State  lines,  is  a 
matter  that  ought  to  be  retained  by  the  general  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  that  it  should  avail  itself  of  the  ownership  of 
these  power  sites  for  the  very  purpose  of  coordinating  in 
one  general  plan  the  power  generated  from  these  Govern¬ 
ment-owned  sites.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  contended  that 
it  would  relieve  a  complicated  situation  if  the  control  of  the 
water-power  site  and  the  control  of  the  water  were  vested 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


5 


in  the  same  sovereignty  and  ownership,  viz:  the  State,  and 
then  were  disposed  of  for  development  to  private  lessees 
under  the  restrictions  needed  to  preserve  the  interests  of 
the  public  from  the  extortions  and  abuses  of  monopoly. 
Therefore,  bills  have  been  introduced  in  Congress  providing 
that  whenever  the  State  authorities  deem  a  water-power 
useful  they  may  apply  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  for  a  grant  to  the  State  of  the  adjacent  land  for  a 
water-power  site,  and  that  this  grant  from  the  Federal 
Government  to  the  State  shall  contain  a  condition  that  the 
State  shall  never  part  with  the  title  to  the  water-power  site 
•or  the  water-power,  but  shall  lease  it  only  for  a  term  of 
years  not  exceeding  fifty,  with  provisions  in  the  lease  by 
which  the  rental  and  the  rates  for  which  the  power  is  fur¬ 
nished  to  the  public  shall  be  readjusted  at  periods  less  than 
the  term  of  the  lease,  say  every  ten  years. 

The  argument  is  urged  against  this  disposition  of  power 
sites  that  legislators  and  State  authorities  are  more  subject  to 
corporate  influence  and  control  than  would  be  the  central 
Government.  In  reply  it  is  claimed  that  a  readjustment  of 
the  terms  of  leasehold  every  ten  years  would  secure  to  the 
public  and  the  State  just  and  equitable  terms.  Then  it  is 
said  that  the  State  authorities  are  better  able  to  understand 
the  local  need  and  what  is  a  fair  adjustment  in  the  particular 
locality  than  would  be  the  authorities  at  Washington.  It 
has  been  argued  that  after  the  Federal  Government  parts 
with  title  to  a  power  site  it  cannot  control  the  action  of  the 
State  in  fulfilling  the  conditions  of  the  deed,  to  which  it  is 
answered  that  in  the  grant  from  the  Government  there  may 

be  easily  inserted  a  condition  specifying  the  terms  upon 

% 

which  the  State  may  part  with  the  temporary  control  of 
the  water-power  sites,  and,  indeed,  the  water-power,  and 
providing  for  a  forfeiture  of  the  title  to  the  water-power 
sites  in  case  the  condition  is  not  performed;  and  giving  to 
the  President,  in  case  of  such  violation  of  conditions,  the 
power  to  declare  forfeiture  and  to  direct  proceedings  to 
restore  to  the  central  Government  the  ownership  of  the 
power  sites  with  all  the  improvements  thereon,  and  that 
these  conditions  may  be  promptly  enforced  and  the  land 
and  plants  forfeited  to  the  general  Government  by  suit 


6 


CONSERVATION  OF 


of  the  United  States  against  the  State,  which  is  permissible 
under  the  Constitution.  And  that  by  such  a  provision, 
in  terrorem,  the  edict  of  States  and  of  the  legislatures  in  re¬ 
spect  to  these  lands  might  be  enforced  through  the  general  Gov¬ 
ernment. 

I  do  not  express  an  opinion  upon  the  controversy  thus 
made  or  a  preference  as  to  the  two  methods  of  treating 
water-power  sites.  I  shall  submit  the  matter  to  Congress 
with  all  the  arguments,  and  urge  that  one  or  the  other  of 
the  two  plans  be  promptly  adopted. 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

Pages  132-4.  James  H.  Davidson. 

They  speak  of  four  great  water-power  companies  in 
California,  and  two  water-power  trusts.  I  thoroughly  in¬ 
vestigated  that  subject,  spending  over  six  months  on  it  three 
years  ago,  and  I  found  that  water  was  king  in  California, 
yet  the  water  is  owned  by  these  four  imperial  companies. 
One-half  of  my  life  and  of  my  most  valuable  treasure  is  my 
son  and  his  family,  now  in  the  San  Joaquin  valley;  and 
every  crevice  and  canon,  in  the  mountains,  almost,  has  been 
pre-empted  by  these  great  water-power  combinations,  and 
it  costs  fifty  dollars  per  horsepower  per  annum  for  the  use 
of  it  for  pumping  or  for  any  other  purpose.  If  the  State 
of  California  had  been  alert,  and  had  had  proper  regulation, 
it  would  have  seen  to  it  that  these  monopolies  could  not 
take  possession  of  all  these  canons  and  control  the  water¬ 
power  against  the  interests  of  the  people. 


North  American  Review.  188:  321-35.  September,  1908. 

The  Constitution  and  the  New  Federalism. 

Henry  Wade  Rogers. 

A  tendency  has  developed  within  a  few  years  to  increase 
the  power  of  the  Federal  Government  at  the  expense  of  the 
State  Government,  and  in  the  Federal  Government  to  en¬ 
hance  the  power  of  the  executive  department  at  the  ex- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


7 


pense  of  both  the  judicial  and  the  legislative  departments. 
A  disposition  has  also  manifested  itself  to  ignore  the  canons 
of  constitutional  construction  which  heretofore  have  guided 
the  courts  of  this  country,  and  to  establish  a  new  theory 
which  shall  give  to  the  Constitution  that  qualify  of  elasticity 
which  is  the  characteristic  of  the  common  law.  There  also 
appear  an  increasing  antagonism  to  the  courts  and  an  at¬ 
tempt  to  create  a  feeling  that  they  are  anti-democratic  and 
should  he  shorn  of  their  power  to  nullify  unconstitutional 
legislation.  The  Constitution  is  itself  beginning  to  be  re¬ 
garded  by  some  of  our  people  as  an  antiquated  document 
which  has  been  outgrown,  and  which  established  a  govern¬ 
ment  that  was  democratic  in  name  but  anti-republican  in 
fact.  An  antipathy  is  expressed  to  the  limitations  of  power 
which  the  Constitution  has  imposed  and  which  the  Fathers 
reverenced  and  deemed  necessary.  These  tendencies  are 
found  to  some  extent  in  both  of  the  great  parties  and  in 
all  sections  of  the  country.  The  tendencies  are  menacing 
and  they  should  be  earnestly  opposed  and  strenuously  re¬ 
sisted.  It  is  not  surprising  that,  among  eighty-five  millions 
of  people,  theories  of  government  should  be  advanced  which 
are  false,  visionary  and  mischievous.  But  the  expression  of 
such  views  need  not  occasion  any  serious  apprehension. 
The  American  people,  in  their  final  judgment,  are  not  likely 
to  go  wrong,  or  to  consent  that  reckless  innovation  shall 
proceed  unchecked.  The  foundation  principles  of  our  institu¬ 
tions  are  not  to  be  undermined  and  destroyed. 

The  chief  difficulty  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  en¬ 
countered  was  in  coming  to  an  agreement  as  to  the  powers 
which  relate  to  the  maintenance  of  the  Central  Government, 
which  are  known  as  structural  powers.  A  great  diversity 
of  opinion  existed  as  to  the  structure  of  the  new  govern¬ 
ment.  Should  representation  be  in  proportion  to  the  popu¬ 
lation  or  should  it  recognize  equality  of  the  States? 
Should  Congress  be  composed  of  two  Houses  or  one?  What 
regulation  should  be  prescribed  as  to  the  time,  place  and 
manner  of  electing  the  members  of  Congress?  Should  the 
Executive  be  one  or  several  persons?  How  should  the 
Executive  be  chosen  and  for  what  term;  and  should  he  be 
eligible  for  re-election?  Should  the  Executive  be  surrounded 


8 


CONSERVATION  OF 


by  a  council?  How  should  the  judicial  department  be  con¬ 
stituted,  and  what  should  be  its  jurisdiction? 

But  less  difficulty  was  experienced  when  it  came  to  de¬ 
fining-  the  functional  powers  of  the  Government.  The  whole 
history  and  experience  of  the  country  indicated  very  plainly 
the  line  of  partition  between  the  powers  of  the  States  and 
of  the  National  Government.  From  the  very  beginning  of 
our  Government,  we  have  recognized  a  partition  of  powers. 
Matters  of  Imperial  concern  had  belonged,  throughout  the 
Colonial  period,  to  the  Imperial  Government;  while  mat¬ 
ters  of  local  concern  were  regulated  by  each  Colony  for  it¬ 
self.  The  line  of  division  separating  these  powers  was  not 
sharply  defined  by  organic  law,  but  it  continued  to  exist 
down  to  the  time  when  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were 
adopted. 

The  founders  of  the  Republic  established  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  upon  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  absolute  auton¬ 
omy  of  the  States,  except  in  respect  to  the  interests  com¬ 
mon  to  the  entire  country.  They  realized  to  the  full 
extent  that  upon  no  other  principle  would  it  be  possible  to 
maintain  a  republican  government  over  a  country  even  as 
large  as  ours  then  was. 

Once  the  question  was  whether  the  States  would  destroy 
the  National  Government.  Now  the  question  seems  to  be 
whether  the  National  Government  shall  be  permitted  to 
destroy  the  States.  It  was  the  fear  that  that  question  might 
sometime  arise  which  led  Samuel  Adams  and  John  Hancock 
in  Massachusetts,  George  Clinton  in  New  York  and  Patrick 
Henry  in  Virginia  to  withhold  for  so  long  their  assent  to 
the  ratification  of  the  Constitution.  But,  under  the  Consti¬ 
tution,  the  States  are  as  indestructible  as  the  Union.  The 
Constitution  looks  to  an  indestructible  Union  composed  of 
indestructible  States.  Actual  abolition  of  the  States  is 
impossible.  There  are,  however,  forces  in  operation  which 
seek  to  reduce  the  States  to  administrative  departments  like 
those  of  France.  There  is  an  increasing  tendency  to  regard 
a  State  as  a  mere  geographical  expression,  rather  than  as  a 
political  division  of  the  country.  There  ought  to  be,  in 
every  part  of  our  country,  .not  only  a  revival  of  knowledge 
of  the  Constitution,  but  a  careful  study  and  weighing  of  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


9 


opinions  of  the  Fathers  as  they  found  expression  in  the  de¬ 
bates  in  the  Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution,  and 
in  the  Conventions  of  the  several  States  which  ratified  that 

instrument. 

There  is  a  constitutional  and  wholesome  doctrine  of 
State  rights  the  maintenance  of  which  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  the  continued  welfare  of  the  Republic.  In  the 
name  of  State  rights  certain  extreme  and  disorganizing 
views  were  at  one  time  promulgated,  which  the  country 
received  with  disfavor.  In  our  day,  nullification  is  recog¬ 
nized  as  folly  and  secession  as  a  crime.  But  it  has  been  said 
that,  because  this  folly  and  this  crime  were  committed  in 
the  name  of  State  rights,  it  would  be  folly  to  infer  that  the 
name  may  not  have  a  good  meaning  and  represent  a  useful 
thing. 

If  the  Government  is  to  endure,  the  people  must  stead¬ 
fastly  maintain  two  essential  and  fundamental  principles:  the 
first  is,  that  the  National  Government  possesses  all  the 
powers  granted  to  it  in  the  Constitution,  either  expressly 
or  by  necessary  implication;  and  the  second  is,  that  the 
States  possess  all  governmental  powers  not  granted  to  the 
General  Government  or  reserved  to  the  people. 

We  are  threatened  with  a  revival  of  Federalism — a  Feder¬ 
alism  that  is  more  extreme  and  radical  than  the  leaders 
of  the  old  Federal  party  ever  countenanced.  The  argument 
proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  the  States  have  failed  to 
perform  their  duty  properly,  so  that  great  evils  have  grown 
up  which  the  States  cannot  or  will  not  remedy,  and  from 
which  we  should  have  been  free  if  only  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  had  possessed  the  authority  and  not  the  States. 

That  the  evils  exist  is  conceded.  That  the  States  have 
not  done  their  full  duty  also  is  conceded.  But  that  the 
Federal  Government  would  have  done  better  is  a  mere  as¬ 
sumption,  and  one  I  am  not  prepared  to  accept.  Congress 
now  has  in  the  Territories  and  District  of  Columbia  all  the 
powers  which  the  State  Governments  possess;  yet  the  legis¬ 
lation  respecting  the  corporations  which  Congress  has  en¬ 
acted*  has  not  been  better  than  the  legislation  of  the  States 
on  the  same  subject.  The  laws  of  Congress  have  not 
secured  publicity  of  accounts,  nor  prevented  over-capitaliza- 


10 


CONSERVATION  OF 


tion  and  stock-watering,  and  an  adequate  system  of  inspec¬ 
tion  has  not  been  established  over  Federal  corporations. 
The  Union  Pacific  Railroad,  with  which  Congress  has  been 
concerned,  had,  upon  its  reorganization  in  1897,  a  share 
capital  of  $136,000,000,  which  at  market  prices  was  worth 
only  $54,000,000,  showing  an  estimated  over-capitalization 
of  $81,330,000.  Congress  has  provided  for  the  examination 
of  the  National  Banks.  But  the  inspection  of  the  National 
Banks  is  not  superior  to  the  system  which  Massachusetts 
has  established  for  the  inspection  of  its  State  banks.  The 
law  of  Massachusetts  regulating  insurance  companies  is  as 
good  as,  and  in  some  respects  better  than,  that  which  the 
advocates  of  a  Federal  law  endeavored  to  get  Congress  to 
enact  a  year  or  two  ago.  And  about  the  time  the  President 
was  declaring  in  messages  to  Congress  that  the  States  were 
incompetent  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  insurance,  the 
State  of  New  York,  under  the  guidance  of  its  present  Gov¬ 
ernor,  enacted  an  admirable  piece  of  legislation,  superior 
to  that  which  a  president  of  a  Ne\y  Jersey  insurance  com¬ 
pany,  himself  a  Senator,  was  seeking  to  impose  upon  Con¬ 
gress,  under  the  fallacious  assumption  that  insurance  was 
interstate  commerce,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  During  the  present 
year,  the  same  State,  under  the  direction  of  the  same  Gov¬ 
ernor,  has  enacted  a  Public  Utilities  Faw  which,  as  a  piece 
of  constructive  legislation  intended  to  curb  the  public  serv-' 
ice  corporations,  is  in  advance  of  anything  which  has  come 
from  Congress  respecting  the  corporations  it  has  created, 
or  over  which  it  has  control  as  the  legislature  for  the  Ter- 
ritorities  and  the  District  of  Columbia. 

That  in  times  past  State  Legislatures  have  been  under  the 
control  of  special  interests  is  too  true.  But,  unfortunately, 
so  has  Congress.  One  evidence  of  it  is  seen  in  the  tariffs 
established  from  time  to  time.  Under  the  pretence  of  pro¬ 
tecting  labor,  tariffs  have  been  fixed,  not  merely  high  enough 
to  cover  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  here  and  abroad, 
but  far  in  excess  thereof,  and  so  high  that  the  great  mass 
of  the  people  of  this  country  have  been  exploited  that  the 
privileged  few  might  build  up  enormous  fortunes.  The  legis¬ 
lation  has  not  been  in  the  interest  of  the  working-man  nor 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


ii 


for  the  benefit  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  but  quite  the  re¬ 
verse.  Those  who  have  been  benefited  by  such  legislation 
have  been  certain  privileged  classes,  the  coal  barons  and  the 
beef  barons,  the  steel  barons  and  the  lumber  barons,  the 
sugar  barons  and  tobacco  barons  of  the  country,  who  have 
been  permitted  by  Congress  to  write  the  tariff  laws  of  the 
United  States. 

Scandals  there  have  been  at  times  under  the  State  Gov¬ 
ernments,  and  scandals  likewise  there  have  been  under  the 
Federal  Government.  Unfortunately,  scandals  are  likely 
to  arise  under  any  government;  for  the  men  who  are  en¬ 
trusted  with  public  office  are  not  always  of  high  character 
or  distinguished  for  probity.  But  the  National  Government 
has  had  its  full  share  in  the  shame  and  disgrace  occasioned 
by  those  who  have  betrayed  their  public  trusts.  Some  years 
ago,  Senator  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  speaking  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  of  a  work  authorized  by  Congress, 
said: 

When  the  greatest  railroad  of  the  world,  binding  together  the 
continent  and  uniting  the  two  great  seas  that  wash  our  shores, 
was  finished,  I  have  seen  our  national  triumph  and  exultation 
turned  to  bitterness  and  shame  by  the  unanimous  reports  of  three 
Committees  of  Congress — two  of  the  House  and  one  here — that 
every  step  of  that  mighty  enterprise  had  been  taken  in  fraud. 

The  fraud  and  corruption  which  have  attended  upon  our 
dealings  with  the  Indians  extend  through  a  century  of  dis¬ 
honor.  The  memory  of  the  Credit  Mobilier,  of  the  Whiskey 
Ring  and  of  the  Star  Route  Ring  has  not  faded  out  of  mind. 
The  revelation  made  a  short  time  ago  as  to  the  corruption 
which  existed  in  the  Post-office  Department  and  in  the 
Agricultural  Department  are  fresh  in  the  public  recollection, 
as  are  the  frauds  connected  with  the  administration  of  the 
public  lands.  But  recently,  the  President  suspended  the 
Public  Printer  on  charges  of  maladministration. 

The  tendency  to  take  their  domestic  affairs  from  the  con¬ 
trol  of  the  State  is  shown  by  the  agitation  in  favor  of  a 
national  incorporation  law.  It  is  assumed  that  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce  includes  the  right  to  regulate  the 
corporation  which  is  engaged  in  commerce.  But  if,  under 
its  pbwer  to  regulate  commerce,  Congress  can  .assume  con¬ 
trol  over  all  corporations  which  engage  in  interstate  com¬ 
merce,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  it  has  not  an  equal  right  to 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


12 


CONSERVATION  OF 


assume  a  like  control  over  all  partnerships  that  do  any 
interstate  business,  as  well  as  over  all  individuals  whose 
business  is  of  a  similar  nature.  In  this  way,  Congress  can 
take  to  itself  jurisdiction  over  a  very  large  part  of  the 
business  of  the  country,  withdrawing  from  the  control  of 
the  States  what  always  has  been  supposed  to  be  within 
their  peculiar  province,  and  working  a  fundamental  change 
in  the  character  of  the  Government  itself.  It  may  be  very 
seriously  questioned  whether  the  mere  fact  that  a  corpora¬ 
tion  or  a  partnership  is  engaged  in  interstate  commerce 
affords  any  sound  legal  reason  for  assuming  that  Congress 
has  the  right  to  exercise  an  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  every 
such  corporation  and  partnership  or  individual  who  en¬ 
gages  in  interstate  commerce,  even  though  the  interstate 
commerce  may  be  but  a  part  of  the  business  of  such  cor¬ 
poration  or  partnership,  as  they  may  be  likewise  engaged  in 
intrastate  commerce.  So  that  if  the  regulation  of  corpora¬ 
tions  is  a  regulation  of  interstate  commerce  it  may  be  a  regu¬ 
lation  of  intrastate  commerce  as  wfcll. 

If  Congress  has  jurisdiction  over  every  corporation  which 
to  any  extent  engages  in  interstate  commerce,  what  is  there 
to  prevent  Congress  from  declaring  that  the  vast  properties 
which  these  corporations  control  shall  not  be  taxed  by  the 
State  Governments  without  the  consent  of  Congress?  The 
States  cannot  tax  National  Banks  except  to  the  extent 
authorized  by  the  national  banking  law.  If  all  corporations 
engaged  in  interstate  commerce  are  to  be  compelled  to 
incorporate  under  a  national  incorporation  law,  why  may 
not  Congress  prohibit  the  States  from  taxing  such  corpora¬ 
tions  or  the  properties  which  they  own?  It  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose  to  say  that  Congress  would  never  exercise  the 
power.  The  fact  that  it  could  exercise  the  power,  and 
might  sometime  do  so  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  is  one 
not  lightly  to  be  lost  sight  of,  as  these  corporations  own  a 
very  large  proportion  of  the  wealth  of  the  country,  the 
withdrawal  of  which  from  the  taxing  power  of  the  States 
would  be  most  mischievous,  crippling  the  resources  of  the 
States  and  imposing  new  burdens  of  taxation  on  the  individ¬ 
ual  citizen. 

The  disposition  to  extend  the  power  of  Congress  beyond 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


13 


its  constitutional  limits  and  unduly  to  diminish  the  proper 
legislative  authority  of  the  States  is  farther  exemplified  in 
the  passage  by  Congress  in  1906  of  the  Employers’  Liability 
Act.  Congress  assumed  that,  under  its  power  to  regulate 
commerce,  it  could  pass  the  Act  and  apply  it  to  all  em¬ 
ployees  of  common  carriers  engaged  in  interstate  commerce, 
even  though  such  employees  rendered  no  service  in  the 
transportation  of  interstate  commerce,  such  as  engineers  of 
local  trains,  section  hands,  mechanics  in  car  and  machine 
shops  and  clerks  in  offices.  The  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Employers’  Liability  cases  declared  the  law  unconstitutional 
and  denied  the  contention  of  the  Attorney-General  that 
where  one  engages  in  interstate  commerce  one  thereby 
comes  under  the  power  of  Congress  as  to  all  his  business 
and  may  not  complain  of  any  regulation  which  Congress 
may  choose  to  adopt. 

The  extreme  to  which  advocates  of  the  New  Federalism 
go  is  shown  in  the  proposal  to  enact  the  Beveridge  Child- 
labor  Law  and  make  it  applicable  throughout  the  United 
States.  The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  the  power 

to  regulate  commerce  does  not  confer  power  to  regulate 
manufactures,  as  commerce  and  manufactures  are  not  syn¬ 
onymous.  But  the  advocates  of  the  Bill  asserted  that  the 
Government  has  the  power  to  shut  out  from  interstate  busi¬ 
ness  any  article  manufactured  in  violation  of  the  Act.  To 
assume  that  Congress  can  do  this  is  to  assume  that  it  can 
regulate  the  hours  of  labor,  the  wages  paid  and  prices 

charged  by  any  factory  in  the  United  States  for  goods 
which  are  to  find  their  way  into  interstate  commerce.  To 
assume  that  the  Congress  has  any  such  power  is  to  assume 
that  American  statesmen  and  American  lawyers  for  a 
hundred  and  twenty  years  have  not  understood  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  this  country  aright. 

The  excuse  made  for  bringing  a  bill  of  this  kind  before 
Congress  was  that  the  States  had  not  discharged  their  full 
duty  in  the  matter.  But  if  half  of  the  States  have  not 

enacted  a  Child-labor  Law,  they  are  no  more  delinquent 

than  Congress.  No  one  questions  that  Congress  has  a  con¬ 
stitutional  right  to  make  such  a  law  applicable  to  the  District 
of  Columbia  and  for  the  Territories.  It  has,  however,  never 


14 


CONSERVATION  OF 


done  so,  and  the  same  condemnation  which  its  advocates 
pronounce  upon  the  States  which  have  failed  to  enact  such 
laws  is  as  applicable  to  the  Congress  for  a  similar  neglect 
within  the  limits  of  its  unquestioned  jurisdiction.  Un¬ 
doubtedly,  there  should  be  such  a  law  in  each  State,  and 
one  already  exists  in  a  majority  of  the  States. 

Until  recently,  it  had  always  been  supposed  that  the 
Federal  Government  had  no  possessive  title  to  the  water 
flowing  in  navigable  streams,  nor  to  the  lands  composing 
their  beds  and  shores.  It  had  not  been  thought  that  Con¬ 
gress  could  grant  any  absolute  authority  to  any  one  to  use 
and  occupy  such  water  and  land  for  manufacturing  and 
industrial  purposes.  The  theory  has  been  that  the  Federal 
Government  controlled  navigable  streams  for  the  single 
purpose  of  preventing  obstruction  to  navigation.  The  States 
have  granted  the  use  of  these  streams  for  power  or  irriga¬ 
tion  purposes,  and  their  action  has  always  been  understood 
to  be  subject  to  be  reviewed  by  the  Congress,  but  only  to 
the  extent  of  determining  whether  that  which  the  States  had 
authorized  would  constitute  an  interference  with  commerce. 
Now,  apparently  unmindful  of  an  impressive  line  of  deci¬ 
sions  of  the  courts  which  assert  the  doctrine  that  the  wa¬ 
ters  of  a  river  and  the  waters  of  the  arms  of  the  sea  belong 
to  the  States  and  not  to  the  Federal  Government,  the  Presi¬ 
dent  recently  sent  a  message  to  the  Congress  asserting  a 
right  in  the  General  Government  to  exact  tolls  for  the  use 
of  the  waters  in  navigable  streams,  and  of  his  intention  to 
veto  all  bills  granting  water-power  rights  which  do  not 
authorize  the  President  or  the  Secretary  concerned  to  col¬ 
lect  such  tolls  as  he  may  find  to  be  just  and  reasonable. 
A  Republican  Senator  properly  characterized  the  doctrine 
as  “the  most  far-reaching  and  over-reaching  claim  of  power 
that  ever  was  made  in  a  government.”  And  he  added: 
“The  Kings  and  Emperors  claim  no  such  rights  in  their 
lands.” 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  made  known  on 
various  occasions  his  conviction  that  what  the  country  needs 
is  “through  executive  action,  through  legislation  and  through 
judicial  interpretation  and  construction,  to  increase  the 
power  of  the  Federal  Government.”  His  distinguished  Sec- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


15 


retary  of  State,  one  of  the  most  eminent  members  of  the 
American  Bar,  whose  ability  and  patriotism  no  man  calls 
in  question,  agrees  with  him.  In  one  of  his  speeches,  Mr. 
Secretary  Root  has  said: 

It  is  useless  for  the  advocates  of  State  rights  to  inveigh 
against  the  supremacy  of  the  constitutional  laws  of  the  United 
States  or  against  the  extension  of  national  authority  in  the  fields 
of  necessary  control,  when  the  States  themselves  fail  in  the  per¬ 
formance  of  their  duty.  The  instinct  for  self-government  among 
the  people  of  the  United  States  is  too  strong  to  permit  them  long 
to  refute  any  one’s  right  to  exercise  a  power  which  he  fails  to 
exercise.  The  governmental  control  which  they  deem  just  and 
necessary  they  will  have.  It  may  be  that  such  control  would  be 
better  exercised  in  particular  instances  by  the  government  of 
the  States,  but  the  people  will  have  the  control  they  need  either 
from  the  States  or  from  the  National  Government,  and  if  the 
States  fail  to  furnish  it  in  due  measure,  sooner  or  later  construc¬ 
tions  of  the  Constitution  will  be  found  to  vest  the  power  where  it 
will  be  exercised  in  the  National  Government. 

In  other  words,  centralization  of  power  in  the  nation  is  to 
be  accomplished  not  by  amendment  of  the  Constitution  de¬ 
priving  States  of  the  rights  which  now  are  theirs  under  the 
Constitution,  but  they  are  to  be  deprived  of  those  rights 
by  construction  and  interpretation.  The  revolutionary  char¬ 
acter  of  these  utterances  will  be  better  understood  if  the}' 
are  read  in  the  light  of  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  lead¬ 
ing  authority  on  American  Law.  In  his  great  work  on 
Constitutional  Limitations,  Mr.  Justice  Cooley  says: 

A  Constitution  is  not  to  be  made  to  mean  one  thing  at  one 
time,  and  another  at  some  subsequent  time  when  the  circum¬ 
stances  may  have  so  changed  as  perhaps  to  make  a  different  rule 
in  the  case  seem  desirable.  ...  A  Court  or  Legislature  which 
should  allow  a  change  in  public  sentiment  to  influence  it  in  giving 
to  a  written  Constitution  a  construction  not  warranted  by  the  in¬ 
tention  of  its  founders,  would  be  justly  chargeable  with  reckless 
disregard  of  official  oath  and  public  duty.  .  .  .  What  a  Court  is 
to  do,  therefore,  is  to  declare  the  law  as  written,  leaving  it  to 
the  people  themselves  to  make  such  changes  as  new  circumstances 
require.  The  meaning  of  the  Constitution  is  fixed  when  it  is 
adopted,  and  it  is  not  different  at  any  subsequent  time  when  a 
Court  has  occasion  to  pass  upon  it. 

Another  distinguished  commentator  on  the  Constitution, 
Mr.  Tucker,  says: 

The  idea  that  usurpation,  or  necessity,  or  a  supposed  extension 
as  the  consequence  of  custom  or  progress  of  society,  can  make 
jural  any  power  not  constitutionally  conferred  is  contrary  to 
American  political  science,  fatal  to  the  liberties  of  the  people  and 
is  only  a  wicked  pretext  for  the  violation  of  sworn  obligations. 
Such  an  idea  would  really  mean  this — that  persistent  usurpation 
of  pow*er  by  a  Government,  acting  under  the  prescribed  limita¬ 
tions  of  a  written  Constitution,  could  amend  and  change  that 
Constitution,  which  by  its  terms  can  only  be  amended  by  the 
body  politic  itself.  It  would  make  the  Government  a  self-creator 


i6 


CONSERVATION  OF 


of  its  own  powers,  instead  of  the  creation  of  the  body  politic 
with  only  delegated  powers.  It  would  take  sovereignty  from  the 
people  and  vest  it  in  the  Government;  and  transfer  all  political 
authority  by  flagrant  usurpation  from  the  body  politic  to  the 
omnipotent  Government.  Written  Constitutions  would  be  de¬ 
stroyed,  and  the  self-usurped  omnipotence  of  irresponsible  gov¬ 
ernment  would  be  enacted  upon  their  ruins. 

This,  it  should  be  needless  to  say,  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  That  Court  has  lately  said: 

The  Constitution  is  a  written  instrument;  as  such,  its  mean¬ 
ing  does  not  alter.  That  which  it  meant  when  adopted,  it  means 
now.  .  .  .  Those  things  which  are  written  within  its  grant  of 
power,  as  those  grants  were  understood  when  made,  are  still 
within  them;  and  those  things  not  within  them  remain  still  ex¬ 
cluded.  .  .  .  As  long  as  it  continues  to  exist  in  its  present  form, 
it  speaks  not  only  in  the  same  words,  but  with  the  same  mean¬ 
ing  and  intent  with  which  it  spoke  when  it  came  from  the  hands 
of  its  framers. 

To  be  told  by  men  in  high  authority  that  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  is  to  be  changed  by  construction  and  interpretation,  so 
that  it  shall  mean  something  different  from  what  it  says 
and  from  what  it  has  always  been  understood  to  mean, 
and  from  what  it  was  intended  to  mean  by  those  who  framed 
and  adopted  it,  is  evidence  of  an  extraordinary  disregard  of 
the  accepted  principles  of  courts  and  commentators. 

The  proposal  to  discard  the  idea  that  the  Constitution 
always  means  the  same  thing,  and  to  adopt  the  theory  that 
the  courts  shall  by  construction  make  it  mean  what  the 
people  want  it  to  mean  or  what  the  exigencies  of  the  occa¬ 
sion  may  seem  to  require  it  to  mean,  is  in  effect  to  propose 
that  the  Supreme  Court  shall  have  the  power,  by  a  vote 
of  five  to  four,  to  amend  the  instrument  according  to  their 
views  of  what  it  is  desirable  it  should  mean.  This  power  the 
courts  are  to  have  in  order  to  give  elasticity  to  the  Consti¬ 
tution.  The  Constitution  points  out  the  method  by  which 
the  people  are  to  amend  it  when,  in  their  judgment,  it 
needs  amendment.  But,  as  the  people  have  not  made  much 
use  of  the  amending  power,  it  is  concluded  that  instead 
of  requiring  a  change  in  the  Constitution  to  be  ratified  by 
the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  several  States,  as 
the  framers  provided,  it  will  be  much  the  simpler  and  easier 
way  just  to  permit  the  Supreme  Court  to  make  the  change 
by  construction,  even  though  it  be  by  a  five  to  four  vote, 
so  construing  the  words  used  in  the  instrument  as  to  give 
them,  not  the  meaning  which  those  who  framed  and  adopted 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


1 7 


the  instrument  meant  them  to  have,  but  the  meaning  which 
the  majority  of  the  Court  may  think  that  the  people  at  that 
particular  time  most  approve.  To  secure  the  approval  of 
five  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  less  trouble¬ 
some  than  to  secure  the  approval  of  the  Legislatures  of 
thirty-four  States.  But  any  theory  of  construction  which 
makes  the  Constitution  mean  what  a  majority  of  the  people 
think  at  a  given  time  it  should  mean,  is  certainly  not  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  law  and  the  prophets.  A  Federal  judge 
of  an  inferior  court,  in  a  paper  read  before  the  American 
Bar  Association  at  Portland  in  August  last,  argued  in  sup¬ 
port  of  this  new  theory.  But,  as  Mr.  Justice  Harlan  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  said,  those  who 
hold  to  this  theory  are,  “happily,  few  in  number.”  Con¬ 
tinuing,  Justice  Harlan  declared  that  “such  theories  of  con¬ 
stitutional  construction  find  no  support  in  judicial  decisions 
or  in  sound  reason,  least  of  all  in  the  final  judgments  of 
that  tribunal  whose  greatest  function  is  to  declare  the  mean¬ 
ing  and  the  scope  of  the  fundamental  law.” 

In  weighing  the  arguments  for  National  as  against  State 
control,  it  may  be  well  to  remember  that  a  minority  of  the 
people  not  only  may  elect,  but  since  1856  more  frequently 
have  elected,  the  President.  In  the  States,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Governors  are  more  generally  chosen  by  a  ma¬ 
jority  vote  of  the  electors.  Including  1856,  there  have  been 
thirteen  Presidential  elections,  and  in  only  six  out  of  thirteen 
did  the  successful  candidate  secure  a  majority  of  the  popular 
vote.  On  the  other  hand,  during  the  same  period  the  State 
of  New  York  has  held  thirty-five  gubernatorial  elections, 
and  the  successful  candidate  obtained  a  majority  of  votes  in 
all  but  five  of  them.  Under  our  system,  it  has  not  only 
happened  that  during  the  past  fifty  years  the  President  has 
generally  been  chosen  by  a  minority  of  the  people,  but  that 
the  minority  party  has  in  some  instances  gained  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  by  a  large  majority.  For  example, 
in  i860  the  Republican  party  elected  its  candidate  for  Presi¬ 
dent  although  he  had  but  forty  per  cent  of  the  popular 
vote,  and  at  the  same  time  it  elected  sixty  per  cent  of  the 
members  chosen  to  the  House.  In  1892,  the  Democratic 
party  elected  its  candidate  for  President  although  he  had 


i8 


CONSERVATION  OF 


but  forty-five  per  cent  of  the  popular  vote,  and  at  the  same 
time  it  elected  sixty-two  per  cent  of  the  members  of  the 
House.  And  it  has  happened,  as  in  1876,  that  one  party 
elected  the  President  and  the  other  carried  the  House  of 
Representatives.  It  is  a  fact,  therefore,  that  under  our  sys¬ 
tem  of  elections  the  President  and  Congress  are  not  as  liable 
to  represent  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  entire  country 
as  are  the  Governors  and  Legislators  of  the  States  to 
represent  the  majority  of  the  voters  of  their  respective 
States. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  cannot  possibly  act  with 
the  same  promptness  and  directness  as  are  possible  to  the 
people  of  a  single  State.  It  takes  longer  for  public  opinion 
to  form  and  make  itself  felt  among  eighty-five  millions  of 
people,  scattered  over  a  continent  and  having  interests 
widely  dissimilar,  than  in  a  single  State  where  the  people 
are  more  closely  associated  and  where  their  interests  are 
less  divergent.  The  ease  with  which  a  State  Constitution 
may  be  amended  and  the  difficulty  which  has  been  found  to 
exist  in  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
afford  instructive  illustration  upon  the  point  under  con¬ 
sideration.  The  smaller  the  unit  of  government,  the  more 
prompt,  direct  and  intelligent  its  action  is  likely  to  be. 

Congress  might  enact  legislation  which  may  be  injurious 
to  particular  sections  of  the  country  without  responsibility 
to  the  States  affected.  An  act  may  be  passed  which  is  harm¬ 
ful  to  the  interests  of  New  York,  and  which  its  representa¬ 
tives  in.  the  Senate  and  the  House  unanimously  oppose,  and 
the  people  of  the  State  are  absolutely  remediless.  If  the 
same  act  had  been  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State, 
those  responsible  for  it  could  be  turned  out  of  power  at  the 
next  election  and  the  law  repealed  by  their  successors.  But 
the  Senators  from  Idaho  and  California  owe  no  responsibil¬ 
ity  to  any  other  Legislature  than  their  own,  and  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  in  Congress  from  Texas  are  accountable  only  to 
the  people  of  Texas.  For  this  reason  it  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  that  the  powers  of  Congress  should  be  restricted 
to  matters  which  affect  all  parts  of  the  country  alike.  It 
should  not  be  possible  for  other  States  to  govern,  say,  New 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


iQ 


York,  except  in  those  matters  which  are  essential  to  the  com¬ 
mon  welfare  of  all  the  States. 

The  American  people,  in  their  desire  to  remedy  existing 
abuses  and  to  avert  the  dangers  which  menace  them,  should 
not  revolutionize  the  Governments  which  the  Fathers  estab¬ 
lished.  The  rights  of  the  States,  as  well  as  the  rights  of 
the  Nation,  must  be  preserved. 

The  time  is  opportune  to  recall  the  opinion  expressed  by 
Mr.  Justice  Miller  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Constitution.  That 
great  judge  said: 

While  the  pendulum  of  public  opinion  has  swung  with  much 
force  away  from  the  extreme  point  of  the  State’s  rights  doctrine, 
there  may  be  danger  of  its  reaching  an  extreme  point  on  the 
other  side.  In  my  opinion,  the  just  and  equal  observance  of  the 
rights  of  the  States  and  of  the  General  Government,  as  defined 
by  the  present  Constitution,  is  as  necessary  to  the  permanent 
prosperity  of  our  country,  and  to  its  existence  for  another  cen¬ 
tury,  as  it  has  been  for  the  one  whose  close  we  are  now  celebrat¬ 
ing. 

Speaking  of  State  rights,  Mr.  Webster  declared: 

It  is  this  balance  between  the  General  and  State  Govern¬ 
ments  which  has  preserved  the  country  in  unexampled  prosperity 
for  fifty  years;  and  the  destruction  of  this  just  balance  will  be 
the  destruction  of  our  Government.  What  I  believe  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  State  rights  I  hold  as  firmly  as  any  man.  ...  I  say 
again  that  the  upholding  of  State  rights,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
of  the  just  powers  of  Congress  on  the  other,  is  indispensable  to 
the  preservation  of  our  free  republican  government. 

A  few  years  after  the  Civil  War  ended,  Mr.  Beecher, 
speaking  for  national  unity,  emphasized  the  importance  of 
maintaining  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  of  the  local  Gov¬ 
ernments  of  the  States.  He  said: 

New  England,  from  her  earliest  Colonial  days,  with  a  fervor 
and  intensity  that  have  never  been  surpassed,  preserved  inviolate 
the  one  political  doctrine  which  will  enable  this  vast  nation,  if 
anything  will  enable  it,  to  maintain  Federal  unity;  and  that 
doctrine  is  the  rights  of  States.  .  .  .  This  simple  doctrine  of 
State  rights,  not  State  sovereignty,  will  carry  good  government 
with  it  through  all  the  continent.  No  central  government  could 
have  sympathy  and  wise  administrative  adaptation  to  the  local 
peculiarities  of  this  huge  nation,  couched  down  between  two 
oceans,  whose  southern  line  never  freezes  and  whose  northern 
boundary  never  melts. 

And  Mr.  Justice  Harlan  in  December  last  expressed  the 
opinion  that  “The  American  people  are  more  determined 
than  at  any  time  in  their  history  to  maintain  both  National 
and  State  rights,  as  those  rights  exist  under  the  Union 
ordained  by  the  Constitution.”  He  added  that  if  the  trend 
in  public  affairs  to-day  is  towards  the  centralization  of  gov- 


20 


CONSERVATION  OF 


ernmental  power  in  the  nation  and  the  destruction  of  the 
rights  of  the  States,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  every  American 
to  resist  such  a  tendency  by  every  means  in  his  power.  He 
thought  that  a  National  Government  for  national  affairs,  and 
State  Governments  for  State  affairs,  is  the  foundation  rock 
upon  which  our  institutions  rest,  and  that  any  serious  de¬ 
parture  from  that  principle  would  bring  disaster  upon  the 
American  people  and  upon  the  American  system  of  free  gov¬ 
ernment. 

The  writers  on  political  institutions  have  pointed  out 
many  times  the  advantages  of  local  government  over  central¬ 
ized  government.  They  have  taught  us  that  local  self-gov¬ 
ernment  develops  an  energetic  citizenship,  and  centralization 
an  enervated  one;  that  local  self-government  is  conducive 
to  the  steady  progress  of  society,  and  that  centralization  in¬ 
volves  conditions  which  are  unsound  and  do  not  make  for 
the  progress  of  society;  that  under  local  self-government  of¬ 
ficials  exist  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  that  under 
centralization  the  people  exist  for  the  benefit  of  the  officials; 
that  local  self-government  provides  for  the  political  educa¬ 
tion  of  the  people,  and  that  centralization,  based  upon  the 
principle  that  everything  is  to  be  done  for  the  people 
rather  than  by  the  people,  creates  a  spirit  of  dependence 
which  dwarfs  the  intellectual  and  moral  faculties  and  in¬ 
capacitates  for  citizenship;  that  local  self-government  exerts 
an  influence  which  invigorates,  and  centralization  an  in¬ 
fluence  which  blights;  that  the  basis  of  local  self-government 
is  confidence  in  the  people,  while  the  fundamental  idea  of 
centralization  is  distrust  of  the  people;  that  local  self-gov¬ 
ernment  fixes  responsibility  for  wrongs  and  renders  a  re¬ 
dress  for  grievances  practicable;  that  no  responsibility  any¬ 
where  exists  under  a  system  of  centralization  and  that  re¬ 
dress  is  difficult  to  obtain  for  acts  of  commission  or  omis¬ 
sion;  that  under  local  self-government  every  individual  has 
a  part  to  perform  and  a  duty  to  discharge  in  public  affairs, 
while  under  a  centralized  government  one’s  affairs  are  man¬ 
aged  by  others. 

The  noblest  system  of  political  institutions  the  world  has 
known,  and  the  most  conducive  to  the  happiness  and  wel¬ 
fare  of  mankind,  is  that  of  local  self-government.  It  has 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


21 


been  said  that  “to  centralize  is  the  act  and  trick  of  despots, 
to  decentralize  is  the  necessary  wisdom  of  those  who  love 
good  government.” 

The  preservation  to  the  local  community  of  the  right 
to  manage  its  own  affairs  must  be  recognized  as  essential 
to  the  permanent  well-being  of  the  Republic. 

Local  self-government  has  been  described  by  a  political 
philosopher  as  that  “system  of  government  under  which 
the  greatest  number  of  minds,  knowing  the  most,  and  having 
the  fullest  opportunities  of  knowing  it,  about  the  special  mat¬ 
ter  in  hand,  and  having  the  greatest  interest  in  its  well¬ 
working,  have  the  management  of  it,  or  control  over  it.” 
Centralization  has  been  described  as  that  “system  of  gov¬ 
ernment  under  which  the  smallest  number  of  minds,  or  those 
knowing  the  least,  and  having  the  fewest  opportunities  of 
knowing  it,  about  the  special  matter  in  hand,  and  having 
the  smallest  interest  in  its  well-working,  have  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  it,  or  control  over  it.” 

An  immense  amount  of  wretched  misgovernment  might 
have  been  avoided,  according  to  John  Fiske,  if  all  Legis¬ 
lators  and  all  voters  had  those  two  wholesome  maxims  en¬ 
graven  upon  their  minds. 


North  American  Review.  191:  465-81.  April,  1910. 

Other  Side  of  Conservation.  George  L.  Knapp. 

For  some  years  past  the  reading  public  has  been  treated 
to  fervid  and  extended  eulogies  of  a  policy  which  the  eulo¬ 
gists  call  the  “conservation  of  our  natural  resources.”  In  be¬ 
half  of  this  so-called  “conservation,”  the  finest  press  bureau 
in  the  world  has  labored  with  a  zeal  quite  unhampered  by  any 
considerations  of  fact  or  logic;  and  has  shown  its  understand¬ 
ing  of  practical  psychology  by  appealing,  not  to  popular  rea¬ 
son,  but  to  popular  fears.  We  are  told  by  this  press  bureau  that 
our  natural  resources  are  being  wasted  in  the  most  wanton 
and  criminal  style;  wasted,  apparently,  for  the  sheer  joy  of 
wasting.  We  are  told  that  our  forests  are  being  cut  at  a  rate 
which  will  soon  leave  us  a  land  without  trees;  and  Nineveh, 
and  Tyre,  and  any  other  place  far  enough  away  are  cited  to 


22 


CONSERVATION  OF 


prove  that  a  land  without  trees  is  foredoomed  to  be  a  land 
without  civilization.  (Farmer’s  Bulletin,  No.  327,  by  Gifford 
Pinchot.)  We  are  told  that  our  coal  mines  would  be  ex¬ 
hausted  within  a  century;  that  our  iron  ores  are  going  to  the 
blast  furnace  at  a  rate  which  will  send  us  back  to  the  stone 
age  within  the  lifetime  of  men  who  read  the  fearsome 
prophecy.  In  short,  we  are  assured  that  every  resource 
capable  of  exhaustion  is  being  exhausted  and  that  the  re¬ 
source  which  can  not  be  exhausted  is  being  monopolized. 
Owing  to  the  singular  pertinacity  of  the  sun  in  lifting  water 
to  the  mountain  tops,  and  of  the  earth  in  pulling  that 
water  back  to  the  sea,  even  the  disciples  of  conservation  by 
scare  heads  can  not  say  that  in  a  few  years  we  shall  be  a 
land  without  water  power.  But  they  say  the  next  worst 
thing.  From  official  bureau  and  lecture  platform  and  from 
the  hypnotized,  not  to  say  subsidized,  press  goes  forth  the 
cry  that  the  water-power  sites  of  the  land  are  being  hogged 
at  a  rate  which  will  soon  subject  us  all  to  the  exactions  of 
a  cruel,  soulless,  grasping  “power  trust,”  the  acme  and  con¬ 
summation  of  all  other  trusts.  (Farmer’s  Bulletin,  No.  327, 
by  Gifford  Pinchot.) 

For  all  these  evils  which  make  the  future  a  thing  to  dread 
the  remedy  is  “conservation.”  The  “Government,”  that  po¬ 
tent  “conjuh  word”  of  civic  atavists  and  political  theologians, 
must  stint  its  natural  and  proper  tasks  to  engage  in  the  reg¬ 
ulation  of  this,  that,  or  the  other  industry,  to  “conserve” 
our  resources.  To  “conserve”  our  timber,  the  wooded  areas 
of  the  public  domain,  together  with  all  lands  touching  on. 
and  appertaining  to  the  wooded  areas,  and  all  other  lands 
that  might,  could,  would,  or  should  bear  trees  and  do  not, 
must  be  segregated  from  ordinary  use  and  put  under 
despotic  control  as  “national  forests.”  (A  forest  officer 
defended  to  me  the  proposed  inclusion  of  94,000  acres  of 
treeless  land  in  the  Gunnison  reserve  on  the  ground  that 
the  “abuse  of  land  contiguous  to  the  national  forests  has 
a  detrimental  effect  on  the  forests  themselves.”  Both  the 
English  and  the  logic  are  typical.)  To  “conserve”  our  coal 
supply,  the  coal  lands  must  be  kept  from  passing  into  in¬ 
dividual  ownership,  and  operated,  if  at  all,  by  persons  who 
lease  the  privilege  from  the  National  Government.  To 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


23 


“conserve”  our  water  power  the  power  sites  must  be  treated 
as  the  coal  lands  and  developed,  if  at  all,  as  leaseholds.  In 
a  word,  the  Federal  Government  must  constitute  itself  a 
gigantic  feudal  landlord,  ruling  over  unwilling  tenants  by 
the  agency  of  irresponsible  bureaus,  traversing  every  local 
right,  meddling  with  every  private  enterprise,  which  seems 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  sacred  fetich  of  “conservation.” 

Only  by  such  drastic  means,  we  are  told,  can  the  rights 
of  the  people  be  protected,  and  the  continued  prosperity  of 
the  nation  be  assured.  So  persistently  and  adroitly  has  this 
view  been  urged  by  this  press  bureau  that  millions  of  people 
wonder,  in  their  innocence,  why  anyone  should  object  to  so 
needful  and  righteous  a  work.  Acting  doubtless  on  the  sug¬ 
gestion  of  the  founder  of  the  Ananias  Club,  the  conserva¬ 
tion  press  bureau  has  impugned  the  motives  of  all  who  dis¬ 
agree  with  it.  If  one  objects  to  the  inclusion  of  nonforest 
land  within  forest  reserves  he  is  ranked  forthwith  as  a 
would-be  robber  of  the  public  domain.  If  he  doubts  the 
propriety  of  the  Federal  Government  setting  up  in  business 
as  a  professional  savior  from  imaginary  ills,  he  is  an  “in¬ 
dividualist” — that  being  the  bitterest  term  of  reproach  in 
the  “conservation”  vocabulary.  (“Conservation”  for  October, 
1908.)  If  one  objects  to  the  leasing  of  the  coal  lands,  he 
is  plainly  an  undesirable  citizen  of  some  sort;  and  if  he 
declares  the  proposed  “conservation  charge”  for  water  power 
to  be  both  unconstitutional  and  silly,  he  is  marked  at  once 
as  an  emissary  of  that  fearful  “power  trust”  which  is  so 
unconscionably  long  a-borning. 

Notwithstanding  •  the  ban  thus  threatened,  I  am  going 
to  enter  the  lists.  I  propose  to  speak  for  those  exiles  in 
sin  who  hold  that  a  large  part  of  the  present  “conservation” 
movement  is  unadulterated  humbug.  That  the  modern 
Jeremiahs  are  as  sincere  as  was  the  older  one,  I  do  not 
question.  But  I  count  their  prophecies  to  be  baseless 
vaporings,  and  their  vaunted  remedy  worse  than  the  fancied 
disease.  I  am  one  who  can  see  no  warrant  of  law,  of  justice, 
nor  of  necessity  for  that  wholesale  reversal  of  our  traditional 
policy  which  the  advocates  of  “conservation”  demand.  I 
am  one  who  does  not  shiver  for  the  future  at  the  sight  of 
a  load  of  coal,  nor  view  a  steel  mill  as  the  arch  robber  of 


24 


CONSERVATION  OF 


posterity.  I  am  one  who  does  not  believe  in  a  power  trust, 
past,  present,  or  to  come;  and  who,  if  he  were  a  capitalist 
seeking  to  form  such  a  trust,  would  ask  nothing  better  than 
just  the  present  conservation  scheme  to  help  him.  I  be¬ 
lieve  that  a  government  bureau  is  thq  worst  imaginable  land¬ 
lord;  and  that  its  essential  nature  is  not  changed  by  giving 
it  a  high-sounding  name,  and  decking  it  with  home-made 
haloes.  I  hold  that  the  present  forest  policy  ceases  to  be 
a  nuisance  only  when  it  becomes  a  curse.  Since  that  forest 
policy,  by  the  modest  confession  of  its  author,  is  set  forth 
as  the  model  to  which  all  true  “conservation”  should  con¬ 
form,  I  shall  devote  most  of  my  attention  in  this  paper  to 
the  much-advertised  “national  forests”  and  their  manage¬ 
ment. 

According  to  the  report  of  the  forester  for  1908,  the 
“national  forests”  of  the  United  States,  excluding  Alaska, 
covered  an  area  of  155,822,030  acres,  or  243,472  square  miles 
— almost  exactly  the  extent  of  the  Austrian  Empire.  Nearly 
all  this  vast  domain  is  located  in  the  western  third  of  the 
United  States.  My  own  State — Colorado — has  15,746,932 
acres,  or  24,604  square  miles,  in  these  “national  forests.” 
This  is  just  a  bit  less  than  one-fourth  the  total  area  of  the 
State,  and  about  equals  the  combined  area  of  Holland  and 
Belgium.  Yet  Colorado  ranks  as  a  bad  fifth  in  misfortune, 
coming  after  California,  Montana,  Idaho,  and  Oregon.  Not 
more  than  30  per  cent  of  the  forest-reserve  area  of  Colorado 
is  covered  with  merchantable  timber;  and  about  40  per  cent 
of  that  area  has  no  trees  at  all.  I  believe  a  similar  percent¬ 
age  holds  true  or  very  nearly  true  on  the  whole  “national 
forest”  area.  It  was  Voltaire,  was  it  not,  who  described  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire  as  something  neither  holy,  Roman, 
nor  imperial?  By  the  same  token,  nearly  half  our  “national 
forests”  might  be  defined  as  land  locked  up  from  the  use  of 
the  Nation,  and  bearing  no  trees. 

Legally,  the  Department  of  the  Interior  has  entire  juris¬ 
diction  over  the  management  and  disposal  of  the  public 
lands.  The  Forest  Service  is  a  branch  of  the  Department  of 
Agriculture.  But  an  agreement,  or  “treaty,”  between  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  and  the  Department  of  the  In¬ 
terior  hands  over  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Interior  Department 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


to  the  Forest  Service,  so  far  as  the  “national  forests”,  are 
concerned.  Here  are  the  first  four  articles  of  that  “treaty”: 

Article  I.  The  acceptance  of  the  Forester’s  finding  of  facts 
concerning  land  claims  within  the  forest  reserves. 

Art.  II.  Definite  notice  to  be  given  by  the  General  Land  Office 
to  the  Forest  Service  of  a  claimant’s  intention  to  make  final  proof. 

Art.  III.  The  refusal  by  the  General  Land  Office  to  issue  final 
certificate  or  allow  final  entry  for  any  land  claim  within  the  for¬ 
est  reserve,  against  which  a  forest  officer  has  protested,  until  full 
hearing  before  the  local  land  officers. 

Art.  IV.  The  requirement  of  such  stipulation  and  bond  as  the 
Forester  may  demand  to  protect  forest  reserve  interests  before  the 
approval  of  any  rights  of  way  within  the  forest  reserves.  (Report 
of  the  Forester.  1906.  The  word  “article”  is  mine.) 

The  most  cursory  examination  of  these  four  articles 
shows  that  they  constitute  the  Forester  all  but  a  despot 
within  the  vast  region  of  the  forest  reserves.  His  finding 
of  facts  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  final;  not  one  pros¬ 
pector  or  settler  in  fifty  has  the  financial  means  to  contest 
those  findings.  No  one  can  slip  by  unseen;  for  the  Land 
Office  is  pledged  to  warn  the  Forester  whenever  some 
miscreant  manifests  his  treasonable  intent  of  staking  a  home¬ 
stead  or  patenting  a  mining  claim.  Only  in  rare  and  scat¬ 
tered  cases  can  any  part  of  the  “national  forest”  area  become 
individual  property  without  the  Forester’s  consent.  How 
willingly  he  will  be  likely  to  give  that  consent  appears  on 
page  io  of  his  little  book:  “The  Use  of  the  National  For¬ 
ests”: 

“Under  whatever  law  it  is  taken  up,  the  land  and  all  its 
resources  pass  out  of  the  hands  of  the  people  forever.” 

If  that  means  anything,  it  means  that  the  people  are 
somehow  made  poorer  when  any  part  of  the  national  domain 
is  settled  and  developed  under  private  ownership.  It  would 
be  interesting  to  carry  back  this  idea,  and  see  how  sadly 
the  people  of  the  original  13  States  have  been  impoverished 
by  the  settlement  o-f  the  Mississippi  Valley.  For  lack  of 
space,  however,  we  shall  have  to  confine  our  investigations 
to  the  present. 

The  Forester,  then,  is  absolute  master  of  an  area  about 
20  per  cent  greater  than  that  of  France.  He  has  many 
times  assured  us  that  his  mastery  does  not  interfere  with 
settlement.  Let  us  see.  Half  the  national  forests  are  not 
forest  land.  Much  of  this  nonforest  area  is  desert,  but 
much  of  it  is  very  valuable  for  farming.  Ours  is  a  land- 


26 


CONSERVATION  OF 


hungry  age.  Every  land  drawing  attracts  from  io  to  20 
times  as  many  applicants  for  farms  as  there  are  farms  to 
divide.  Land  once  reckoned  hopelessly  arid  is  being  settled 
and  farmed — in  a  single  “dry”  county  of  Colorado,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  in  September,  1909,  there  were  101  new  homestead 
filings.  Yet  in  the  entire  year  of  1908,  on  an  area  of  pos¬ 
sible  settlement  larger  than  Italy,  only  1 , 1 81  homestead 
claims  on  the  national  forests  were  reported  for  favorable 
action.  Almost  as  many,  1,057,  were  reported  on  adversely; 
and  80  claims  got  no  report  at  all.  In  the  same  year,  1,675 
“ranger’s  headquarters”  were  selected  and  withdrawn  from 
entry.  It  is  a  common  belief  near  the  forest  reserves  that 
a  “ranger’s  headquarters”  bear  a  close  resemblance  to  a 
desirable  homestead.  In  the  previous  year,  1907,  only  750 
reports  on  homestead  claims  were  transmitted  to  the  Land 
Office  by  the  Forester.  How  many  of  these  reports  were 
favorable  he  neglects  to  state;  but  he  does  tell  us  that  in 
that  year,  1,552  “ranger’s  headquarters”  were  picked  out 
and  set  apart  from  the  profane  touch  of  the  settler.  If 
we  allow  the  same  proportion  of  favorable  reports  on  home¬ 
stead  claims  in  1907  that  prevailed  in  1908,  we  find  that  in 
two  years  the  Forester  gave  his  approval  to  1,563  settler’s 
homes,  and  established  3,227  “ranger’s  headquarters.”  In 
the  light  of  this  record  of  more  than  twice  as  many  “ranger- 
steads”  as  homesteads,  the  claim  that  a  national  forest  does 
not  interfere  with  settlement  seems  negligible. 

To  see  how  such  a  policy  afifects  the  community  near 
which  a  national  forest  is  located,  one  needs  but  compare 
the  economic  returns  from  the  national  forests  with  the 
economic  returns  from  similar  land  handled  by  private  indi¬ 
viduals.  The  chief  income  of  the  Forest  Service — always 
excepting  congressional  appropriations — is  derived  from 
grazing  fees.  The  Forester  estimates  this  income  for  the 
year  1908  to  amount  to  $0.00573  per  acre.  Knocking  ofif 
the  last  two  decimal  places  for  convenience  and  doubling 
the  remainder  we  may  say  that  the  nonforested  lands  with¬ 
in  the  forest  reserves  yield  a  gross  income  of  1  cent  per 
acre  per  year.  In  the  spring  of  1909  the  State  Agricultural 
College  of  Colorado  planted  ten  acres  of  potatoes  on  land 
almost  surrounded  by  national  forests.  The  potato-patch 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


•27 


was  7,800  feet  above  sea-level,  and  differed  in  no  particular 
from  thousands  of  acres  of  national  forest  land  near  by. 
The  potatoes  yielded  100  sacks  per  acre,  and  the  price  on 
the  ground  was  $1.50  per  sack.  Individual  farmers  in  the 
neighborhood  got  even  better  returns.  Land  planted  to 
cabbages  gave  a  gross  return  at  the  rate  of  $450  per  acre. 
Land  planted  to  cauliflower  gave  returns  which  I  am  afraid 
to  quote.  Timothy  hay  was  giving  gross  returns  in  that 
district  of  $20  per  acre;  and  in  another  part  of  the  State  that 
return  is  deemed  small.  In  still  another  valley,  small 
fruits  are  bringing  their  cultivators  from  $300  to  $1,000  per 
acre  per  year;  while  just  across  the  imaginary  line  that 
parts  “use”  from  “conservation,”  exactly  similar  land  is 
yielding  a  penny  per  acre  per  year.  The  difference  between 
double  eagles  and  postage  stamps  is  an  understatement  of 
the  difference  to  a  community  between  land  settled  and 
farmed  by  individuals  and  land  “conserved”  in  the  sacrosanct 
national  forests. 

State  Senator  E.  M.  Ammons,  a  trustee  of  the  Agri¬ 
cultural  College,  can  verify  this  statement,  and  supply  simi¬ 
lar  ones. 

Perhaps  an  instance  will  help  to  show  how  the  national 
forests  encourage  settlement.  Mr.  Ira  P.  Hutchings,  of  In¬ 
dependence,  Cal.,  applied  for  a  homestead  in  one  of  the 
forest  reserves  of  that  State,  under  the  so-called  agricultural 
settlement  act  of  1906.  He  received  the  following  answer: 

Inyo  National  Forest, 
Bishop,  Cal.,  January  26,  1909. 

Mr.  Ira  P.  Hutchings, 

Independence,  Cal. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  application  No.  10  for  forest  homestead 

*  *  *  is  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  district  forester.  *  *  * 

In  order  that  the  Forester  may  determine  what  land 
to  recommend  for  listing  it  is  desirable  that  a  demonstra¬ 
tion  be  made  of  fits  agricultural  possibilities,  and  to  this  end 
I  would  suggest  that  you  take  out  a  special  use  permit 
for  40  acres  of  the  tract  applied  for  and  experiment  upon  it. 

*  *  *'It  is  believed  that  two  years  should  be  sufficient  to 
demonstrate  whether  the  land  will  produce  farm  crops  of 
enough  value  to  justify  its  listing  for  agricultural  entry. 


28 


CONSERVATION  OF 


If  results  are  such  that  your  application  is  rejected,  but 
if  you  still  desire  to  continue  occupancy  of  the  40  acres 
under  special-use  permit,  you  may  be  allowed  to  do  so  upon 
payment  of  the  usual  annual  charges.  *  *  * 

A.  N.  Hegne,  Forest  Supervisor. 

As  a  piece  of  unconscious  humor,  I  have  seen  few  things 
to  equal  that  letter  since  the  British  war  correspondents 
left  South  Africa.  If  Mr.  Hutchings  could  prove  that  he 
could  make  a  living  on  40  acres,  the  160  acres  applied  for 
might  be  considered  worth  listing  for  agricultural  entry. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  land  was  too  poor  for  him  to  own, 
he  would  be  permitted  to  occupy  it  as  a  tenant.  It  is  well 
known,  of  course,  that  applicants  for  homesteads  enjoy 
staking  two  years’  time  and  labor  against  the  caprice  of  an 
irresponsible  official;  that  they  are  able  and  anxious  to 
make  “experiments”  at  their  own  expense  for  the  benefit  of 
a  federal  bureau;  and  as  for  renting  land  that  isn’t  good 
enough  to  own,  the  homesteader  has  a  perfect  passion  for  it. 

With  mining  as  with  agriculture’,  “the  acceptance  of  the 
Forester’s  finding  of  facts”  is  the  rule,  and  works  out  in 
pretty  much  the  same  fashion.  The  rangers,  hired  for  a  lit¬ 
tle  more  than  cowboy’s  wages,  and  generally  knowing 
nothing  of  mining,  are  required  to  examine  and  pass  upon 
all  mineral  claims  within  the  sacred  boundaries  of  the 
national  forests.  The  instructions  printed  in  the  Use  Book 
for  the  guidance  of  the  rangers  in  making  these  examina¬ 
tions  are  a  standing  joke  in  every  mining  camp  in  the  West 
which  has  been  unfortunate  enough  to  hear  of  them.  The 
Forester’s  definition  of  a  “valid  mineral  claim”  would  have 
ruled  out  the  “Independence”  on  that  Fourth  of  July  morn¬ 
ing  when  its  owner  went  to  work  because  he  didn’t  have 
enough  money  to  celebrate.  If  the  ranger  reports  adversely, 
the  claim  is  lost;  save  in  those  rare  cases  where  the  claim¬ 
ant  is  morally  and  financially  able  to  fight  for  his  legal  rights. 

Such  a  fight  occurred  in  what  is  known  in  Colorado  as 
the  “Roller  case.”  A  number  of  men,  of  whom  Mr.  W.  W. 
Roller  of  Salida  is  one,  held  11  claims  which  were  located 
and  partly  developed  before  the  ground  was  included  in  a 
forest  reserve.  The  receiver  of  the  land  office  issued  his 
receipt  for  the  purchase  money  of  these  claims  February  24, 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


29 


1906.  On  March  23,  1908,  Mr.  Roller  and  his  companions 
were  notified  that  a  forest  officer  had  filed  charges  against 
the  validity  of  their  claims,  alleging  that  a  sufficient  amount 
of  money  had  not  been  spent  in  development  work,  and  that 
part  of  the  claims  were  not  mineral  in  character. 

One  would  think  that  the  presence  or  absence  of  minerals 
might  be  left  to  the  men  who  were  spending  $50  per  acre 
for  the  right  to  guess  on  that  subject.  The  Forest  Service 
and  the  General  Land  Office  refused  to  furnish  Mr.  Roller 
with  specific  statements  of  the  charges  against  his  claims, 
and  he  was  obliged  to  proceed  in  the  dark.  Luckily,  he  had 
means  to  make  a  fight.  He  proved  that  the  lands  claimed 
were  mineral;  and  that,  mineral  or  not,  he  had  a  right  to 
them  under  the  laws  of  his  country.  He  proved  that  he 
and  his  companions  had  spent  over  $18,000  on  the  claims, 
instead  of  the  $5,500  required  by  law.  In  the  end  he  got 
his  title.  But  in  Summit  County,  Colo.,  a  couple  of  poor 
prospectors  were  not  so  fortunate. 

Nor  is  the  forest  policy  more  favorable  to  the  harnessing 
of  water-power  than  to  other  ‘forms  of  industrial  develop¬ 
ment.  Indeed,  it  is  less  so.  The  theoretical  friendliness 
which  covers — in  speech — the  practical  hostility  of  the  For¬ 
est  Service  toward  mining  and  farming  becomes  too  thin 
for  a  veil  when  a  power  plant  arrives  on  the  scene.  To 
be  sure,  a  water-power  plant  is  about  the  best  example  of 
real  conservation  that  can  be  imagined;  a  waterfall  harnessed 
is  a  coal  mine  saved.  But  the  self-constituted  guardians 
of  the  future  are  here  dealing  with  the  prospective  units 
of  the  to-be-engendered  “power  trust”;  and  no  mere  matter 
of  common  sense  is  allowed  to  turn  them  from  their  stern 
duty.  The  power  plant  which  comes  in  contact  with  the 
national  forests  learns  that  the  way  of  the  transgressor  is 
hard  even  before  he  begins  to  transgress.  It  is  offered  a 
lease  to  the  ground  needed  instead  of  a  title.  It  is  asked  to 
pay  an  annual  rental  for  the  land  covered  by  its  storage 
reservoirs  about  equal  to  the  price  which  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment  asks  for  a  clear  title  to  similar  land  outside  the 
forest  ‘reserves.  It  is  dunned  for  the  rent  of  its  right  of 
way.  It  is  presented  with  a  bill  for  the  “conservation  of 
water,”  the  amount  of  the  bill  being  determined  by  the 


30 


CONSERVATION  OF 


amount  of  power  generated  and  the  length  of  time  that  the 
plant  has  been  in  operation.  On  one  contract  which  I 
examined — but  which  the  company  did  not  sign — the  “con¬ 
servation  charge”  would  have  amounted  to  nearly  $50,000 
per  year  before  the  expiration  of  the  lease. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  basis  in  fact  for  the  claim 
that  the  national  forests  conserve  the  water  in  any  way 
that  makes  it  easier  for  a  power  company  to  use.  The  only 
way  to  store  water  is  to  impound  it  in  reservoirs.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  basis  in  law  for  the  levying  of  such  a 
charge  by  the  Forest  Service,  even  if  the  claim  of  storage 
were  well  founded.  The  water  of  a  nonnavigable  stream 
belongs  to  the  State  in  which  it  is  located  and  must  be 
taken  and  used  under  state  laws  alone.  The  act  of  1897, 
which  established  the  forest  reserves,  expressly  recognizes 
this  state  control.  But  passing  all  questions  of  law  or  of 
fact,  consider  the  injustice  of  thus  levying  a  tax  on  the  in¬ 
dustrial  development  of  the  newer  States,  a  tax  from  which 
the  States  with  no  forest  reserves  are  free!  To  arbitrarily 
make  electric  power  cost  more  in  Colorado  than  in  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  is  as  unjust  as  to  manipulate  the  price  of  bread  in 
the  same  fashion.  If  the  constitutional  power  existed,  its 
exercise  would  be  tyranny — and  the  constitutional  power 
does  not  exist. 

Even  yet  we  have  not  taken  the  full  measure  of  the 
Forester’s  zeal  for  “conservation.”  The  Nevada-California 
Power  Company  supplies  current  to  Goldfield,  Nev.  The 
Central  Colorado  Power  Company  generates  power  on  the 
Grand  River  and  carries  it  over  half  the  State.  In  both 
these  cases  the  filings  on  the  water  were  made  and  the  work 
of  development  well  begun  before  the  lands  on  which  the 
power  sites  are  located  were  included  in  the  national  forests. 
Yet  in  both  cases  the  Forest  Service  tried  to  exact  the 
“conservation  charge”;  in  .both  cases  the  Forest  Service 
bullied,  threatened,  cajoled;  in  both  cases  the  Forest  Service 
backed  down  when  it  encountered  firm  opposition  and  of¬ 
fered  to  settle  for  a  sum  much  smaller  than  the  one  first 
demanded  if  the  company  would  but  come  under  the  tents 
of  “conservation”  and  admit  the  legality  of  the  proposed  tax. 
I  am  happy  to  add  that  in  both  cases — at  least  up  to  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


3i 


date  of  writing — the  companies  have  stood  on  their  legal 
rights  and  have  politely  invited  the  Forest  Service  to  a 
region  where  the  fuel  supply,  at  least,  has  never  been  thought 
to  need  the  labors  of  a  conserver. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  system  which  throughout  its  sphere 
of  action  hampers  all  forms  of  industrial  development.  We 
have  an  area  larger  than  many  a  European  kingdom  put 
to  its  lowest,  instead  of  its  highest,  economic  use.  We  have 
a  policy  which  is  an  absolute  reversal  of  more  than  one 
hundred  years  of  national  habit  and  tradition;  a  policy  which 
holds  barrenness  a  blessing  and  settlement  a  sin;  which 
fines,  instead  of  encouraging,  the  man  who  would  develop 
a  natural  resource;  which  looks  forward  to  a  population 
of  tenants  instead  of  to  a  population  of  proprietors;  which 
seeks  to  replace  the  individual  initiative  that  has  made  our 
land  great  by  a  bureaucratic  control  that  has  made  many 
another  land  small.  Surely,  the  danger  must  be  imminent 
and  terrible  which  is  held  to  justify  such  a  course. 

The  danger  is  said  to  be  imminent,  indeed.  The  con¬ 
servation  press  bureau  is  strong  on  asserting.  The  picture 
of  the  lost  and  forlorn  condition  of  the  land  ground  under 
the  iron  heel  of  the  coming  power  trust  is  calculated  to  move 
the  faithful  to  tears;  and  the  picture  of  the  desolation  which 
will  follow  the  wasting  of  our  natural  resources  is  yet  more 
harrowing.  But  somehow  the  details  of  these  panoramas 
of  terror  are  not  quite  convincing.  It  might  be  well  to  look 
up  the  models  who  sat  for  the  various  figures  of  “famine” 
which  have  troubled  our  rest. 

Take  the  “coal  famine”  first.  The  United  States  Geo¬ 
logical  Survey  gives  the  known  deposits  of  coal  in  this  coun¬ 
try  as  holding  3,157,000.000,000  tons  of  coal.  About  half 
of  this  is  easily  accessible  under  present  mining  conditions. 
One-third  can  be  profitably  mined  only  when  the  demand 
grows  greater  or  mining  grows  cheaper.  One-sixth  is  com¬ 
posed  of  the  lignite  and  subbituminous  coals,  easy  of  ac¬ 
cess,  but  recently  coming  into  use.  The  coal  consumption 

of  the  entire  world  is  about  1,000,000,000  tons  per  year;  that 

# 

of  the  United  States  was  480,000,000  tons  in  1907. 

In  a  paper  read  before  the  Mining  Congress  in  Joplin, 
Mo.,  in  1907,  Mr.  Edward  Parker,  of  the  Geological  Survey, 


32 


CONSERVATION  OF 


analyzed  the  coal  consumption  and  supply  rather  carefully. 
He  pointed  out  that  at  the  present  rate  of  consumption  the 
anthracite  coals  of  Pennsylvania  will  be  exhausted  in  about 
seventy  or  eighty  years.  The  passing  of  anthracite  means 
the  passing  of  a  certain  luxury,  to  be  sure;  but  the  wheels 
of  industry  are  turned  by  bituminous  coal,  and  Mr.  Parker’s 
analysis  of  the  bituminous  situation  is  rather  encouraging. 
To  quote: 

If  we  can  assume  that  the  production  will  continue  to  increase 
with  the  decreasing  percentage  ratio,  the  production  for  the  dec¬ 
ade  ending  in  1915  would  be  60  per  cent  over  that  of  the  decade 
ending  in  1905  *  *  *  ;  in  the  next  ten  years  there  would  be  an 
increase  of  54  per  cent.  *  *  *  If  we  prolong  the  curve  in  this 
way  for  another  hundred  and  fifty  years,  we  find  that  the  produc¬ 
tion  would  become  fairly  constant  between  A.  D.  2046  and  A.  D. 

2055,  with  a  production  of  approximately  2,300,000,000  tons  a  year. 
*  *  * 

If  we  estimate  that  by  A.  D.  2055  the  production  would  amount 
to  2,300,000,000  tons  annually,  and  the  percentage  of  recovery  re¬ 
mains  the  same  (as  now),  the  supply,  in  the  light  of  present 
knowledge,  would  be  exhausted  in  approximately  seven  hundred 
years.  (Proceedings  of  the  American  Mining  Congress,  1907.) 

A  famine  which,  at  the  very  worst,  is  seven  centuries 
away  may  be  viewed  with  a  certain  equanimity.  Mr.  Parker 
further  points  out  that  the  percentage  of  waste  is  already 
decreasing  and  states  his  belief  that  we  shall  soon  recover 
from  90  to  95  per  cent  of  the  coal  from  each  measure  instead 
of  65  per  cent,  as  now — an  item  which  would  add  nearly  a 
third  to  the  estimated  duration  of  the  supply.  He  takes  no 
account  of  lignite  and  subbituminous  coals,  which  exist  in 
quantities  sufficient  to  postpone  the  evil  day  for  a  couple  of 
centuries  more.  In  a  word,  as  soon  as  one  drops  scare 
heads  and  gets  down  to  facts  he  finds  that  the  coal  famine 
is  farther  ahead  than  the  battle  of  Hastings  is  behind.  If 
William  the  Conqueror  had  tried  to  make  plans  for  the  life 
of  the  twentieth  century,  and  had  made  those  plans  fast, 
would  we  thank  him  or  curse  him  for  his  pains? 

I  can  find  no  such  analysis  of  the  “iron  famine”  as  Mr. 
Parker  gives  of  the  coal  famine,  but,  on  the  face  of  things, 
the  evidence  does  not  greatly  stimulate  one’s  interest  in  the 
price  of  flint  razors.  Once  more,  quoting  from  the  Geo¬ 
logical  Survey,  we  have  in  this  country  two  great  classes 
of  ores,  of  which  only  the  richest  is  in  present  use.  Of  these 
richer  ores  the  known  supply  is  something  less  than  5,000,- 
000,000  tons;  of  the  leaner  ores,  with  which  the  iron  business 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


33 


in  this  country  began  and  which  are  used  to-day  in  every 
country  but  this,  the  supply  is  estimated  at  about  75,000,000,- 
000  tons.  We  mined  52,000,000  tons  in  our  banner  year  of 
1907.  Assuming  that  the  ultimate  iron  production  bears  the 
same  ratio  to  present  production  which  Mr.  Parker  estimated 
for  coal,  our  iron  deposits  will  last  but  a  paltry  four  cen¬ 
turies.  I  may  add  that  there  is  no  probability  that  iron  pro¬ 
duction  will  increase  in  the  assumed  measure.  Coal  once 
used  is  gone,  but  iron  once  used  goes  back  to  be  used  over 
again.  When  the  industrial  world  is  once  stocked  with  iron, 
and  the  world’s  population  has  become  fairly  stationary,  we 
shall  mine  only  enough  ore  to  take  the  place  of  the  com¬ 
paratively  small  quantity  that  does  not  come  back  to  the 
mills  for  renovation. 

Next  comes  the  most  imminent  and  pathetic  of  all  fam¬ 
ines,  the  timber  famine.  This  is  usually  scheduled  to  arrive 
in  twenty  years,  though  of  late  there  has  been  a  tendency 
to  admit  that  the  famine  train  may  not  be  quite  on  time. 
When  one  tries  to  collect  and  analyze  the  figures  on  which 
the  prophecy  Is  based,  he  comes  on  a  maze  of  contradic¬ 
tions.  I  quote  here* the  table  given  in  Forest  Products  of 
the  United  States,  1907,  a  publication  of  the  Department  of 
Commerce  and  Labor,  compiled  with  the  aid  of  the  Forest 
Service  and  issued  in  1909.  These  figures  are  by  far  the 
highest  I  can  find.  The  table  is  in  graphic  form,  and  I  may 
have  made  some  errors  in  translating  it  into  words.  If  so, 
the  errors  are  very  small,  for  the  total  thus  reached  checks 
exactly  with  the  total  given  elsewhere  in  that  publication. 

Annual  Wood  Consumption  of  the  United  States 

Billions  of  cubic  feet 


Firewood  .  9-5 

Lumber  and  shingles  .  9-0 

Poles,  posts,  and  rails  .  1-9 

Hewed  cross-ties .  14 

Other  uses  . .  i-2 


•  Total  .  23-0 


Observe  that  the  estimated  “drain  on  the  forests”  from 
firewood  is  greater  than  that  from  all  sawn  lumber  and 


34 


CONSERVATION  OF 


shingles  combined.  To  say  that  such  an  estimate  is  absurd 
is  treating  it  far  too  mildly.  It  is  nothing  short  of  a  direct 
insult  to  common  sense  and  common  information.  Practi¬ 
cally  all  the  firewood  consumed  is  either  mill  waste  or  comes 
from  trees  which  could  not  produce  sawn  lumber,  and  are 
therefore  not  counted  in  estimates  of  the  standing  timber. 
The  figures  on  posts  and  rails  are  purest  guesswork.  Half 
the  terrors  of  our  “timber  famine”  disappear  the  moment 
we  realize  that  firewood  is  a  by-product  of  lumber  mill  and 
farmer’s  wood  lot,  instead  of  a  direct  “drain  on  the  forests.” 

Even  so,  there  is  no  doubt  but  we  have  cut  our  trees 
faster  than  they  have  grown,  and  that  our  methods  of  lum¬ 
bering  have  been  designed  to  save  labor  cost  rather  than  to 
save  timber.  But  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  two  items  usu¬ 
ally  neglected  when  a  “timber  famine”  is  under  discussion. 

First.  A  large  part  of  our  original  timbered  area  was 
deliberately  stripped  of  its  trees,  not  only  to  get  lumber 
to  saw,  but  to  get  land  to  till.  This  was  the  rule  in  most 
of  the  Atlantic  States  and  in  the  timbered  areas  of  West 
Virginia,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  southern 
Michigan  and  Wisconsin.  In  nearly  all  this  region  the  tim¬ 
ber  was  a  secondary  consideration,  and  in  much  of  it  the  logs 
were  dragged  together  and  burned  to  get  them  out  of  the 
way.  The  loss  of  these  forests  has,  therefore,  no  bearing 
at  all  on  the  timber  supply  and  demand  of  to-day.  If  it 
be  true,  as  is  often  stated,  that  the  remaining  forests  are 
mostly  on  land  good  for  little  but  to  grow  trees,  one  great 
factor  in  forest  destruction  is  abolished  forthwith. 

Second.  Our  lumber  consumption  is  decreasing.  The  Na¬ 
tional  Lumber  Manufacturers’  Association  estimates  the 
production  of  1908  to  be  17.3  per  cent  less  than  that  of  1907, 
and  adds  that  1909  will  probably  show  a  similar  or  greater 
decrease.  (American  Lumberman,  July  24,  1909.)  I  believe 
the  decrease  began  earlier.  The  figures  for  the  cut  of  1907 
show  an  apparent  increase  of  8  per  cent  over  the  production 
of  1906.  But  the  number  of  mills  reporting  was  29  per  cent 
greater  in  1907  than  in  1906.  The  probability  is  therefore 
strong  that  the  high  tide  in  lumber  cutting  was  passed  at 
least  three  years  ago  and  that  we  can  look  for  a  steady  if 
slow  decline  for  many  years  to  come. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


35 


What  this  implies  can  be  easily  seen.  The  estimated 
annual  forest  growth  in  this  country  is  12  cubic  feet  per 
acre — one-fourth  of  that  in  the  German  imperial  forests. 
The  area  on  which  this  growth  is  taking  place  is  given  at 
550,000,000  acres.  One  cubic  foot  is  commonly  taken  to  equal 
6  feet  board  measure.  This  makes  our  annual  forest  growth 
come  to  39,600,000,000  feet,  board  measure.  The  known 
drains  of  1908  total  up  to  a  little  less  than  46,000,000,000 
feet,  board  measure.  An  unclassified  drain  exists,  of  course, 
but  it  can  not  be  very  large.  It  will  plainly  take  but  a  small 
shift  in  our  national  habits,  a  shift  already  begun,  to  make 
our  annual  forest  growth  meet  our  annual  demand.  And 
commercial  forestry  has  just  begun.  Many  railroads  are 
planting  trees  for  tie  timber.  Owners  of  timber  land  are 
adopting  more  careful  methods  of  lumbering.  Everything 
points  to  an  early  and  spontaneous  adjustment  of  our  timber 
problem — everything  but  one.  (The  figures  of  annual 
growth  and  acerage  are  taken  from  Forest  Service  Circular 
No.  166,  “Timber  supply  of  the  United  States,”  by  R.  S. 
Kellogg.  The  figures  for  known  uses  are  taken  mainly  from 
the  American  Lumberman.) 

And  that  one  constitutes  an  illuminating  incident  of  the 
conservation  scare.  At  the  very  moment  when  the  heavens 
are  rent  with*wild  cries  for  the  “conservation  of  our  natural 
resources”  the  depletion  of  those  same  resources  is  being 
artificially  hastened  by  the  tariff,  and  no  conservationist 
raises  his  voice  against  the  monstrous  absurdity.  Only  one- 
fifth  of  the  standing  timber  in  the  land  is  included  in  the 
“National  forests”  and  in  the  various  parks  and  Indian  reser¬ 
vations.  To  preserve  this  one-fifth  the  Constitution  is  used 
as  a  door  mat,  a  bureaucratic  despotism  is  called  into  being, 
the  development  of  whole  States  is  checked,  the  productive¬ 
ness  of  vast  areas  is  held  down  to  the  lowest  notch,  and  the 
federal  Treasury  drained  of  millions  of  dollars  per  year. 
And  all  the  time  we  are  offering  a  direct  bounty  of  $1.25 
per  thousand  feet — it  used  to  be  $2 — for  the  destruction  of 
the  other  four-fifths  of  our  timber  supply.  And  the  press 

9 

bureau,  which  boasts  of  reaching  9,600,000  readers,  has  car¬ 
ried  to  none  of  those  readers  a  protest  against  this  national 
folly,  this  folly  that  would  •  be  a  crime  if  there  were  any 


36 


CONSERVATION  OF 


appreciable  percentage  of  truth  in  the  tales  told  to  justify 
“conservation.”  How  shall  we  characterize  that  partisan¬ 
ship  which  can  shriek  disaster  from  the  housetops,  yet  re¬ 
main  dumb  in  the  face  of  the  direct  encouragement  of  that 
disaster? 

Finally,  let  us  inspect  the  bogy  of  the  power  trust.  With¬ 
out  assuming  to  set  metes  and  bounds  for  the  activities 
of  future  captains  of  finance,  there  are  many  reasons  why 
the  talk  of  a  power  trust  is  sheer  nonsense.  No  trust  has 
ever  gained  dangerous  proportions  unless  it  has  been  grant¬ 
ed  some  unfair  advantage  through  government  bounty  or 
seized  some  unfair  privilege  through  government  neglect. 
The  classical  example  of  the  advantage  granted  is  the  tariff; 
the  classical  example  of  the  advantage  seized  is  the  railroad 
rebate.  I  can  see  no  disposition  anywhere  to  grant  such 
favors  to  a  prospective  power  monopoly,  nor  to  sit  by  idly 
while  such  favors  are  seized.  For  at  least  seven  centuries 
the  water-power  companies  must  be  prepared  to  compete 
with  coal,  and  it  is  not  without  bearing  on  this  question 
that  the  sun  motor  and  the  wave  motor  are  both  accom¬ 
plished  facts  merely  awaiting  commercialization. 

The  physical  obstacles  to  a  power  trust  are  insuperable 
so  long  as  the  States  insist  on  actual  use  being  necessary 
to  the  ownership  of  water.  Of  the  financial  troubles  of 
such  a  trust  I  will  only  say  that  Government  “experts” 
estimate  that  it  will  take  $23,000,000,000  to  finance  the  water¬ 
power  development  of  the  United  States.  The  likelihood 
of  such  an  aggregation,  of  capital  under  one  control  I  leave 
others  to  consider. 

Just  one  of  all  the  scares  adduced  to  justify  the  freaks 
of  “conservation”  has  any  basis  in  fact,  and  that  basis  rests 
on  a  legislative  folly  against  which  no  disciple  of  “con¬ 
servation”  protests.  The  rest  of  the  terrors  are  the  unreal 
fabric  of  a  bureaucratic  dream.  And  if  they  were  real  the 
worst  possible  method  of  meeting  them  would  be  that 
scheme  which  is  touted  by  the  conservation  press  bureau 
as  a  piece  of  statesmanship  so  profound  that  its  authors  are 
appalled  afresh  each  day  at  their  own  supernal  wisdom. 
If  the  power  trust  were  a  real  menace,  how  could  its  com¬ 
ing  be  hastened  more  surely  than  by  cutting  off  from  use 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


37 


the  supply  of  power  sites?  If  a  .coal  famine  were  impend¬ 
ing,  what  could  be  worse  folly  than  to  put  in  charge  of 
the  coal  mines  an  agency  which  can  not  even  run  a  monop¬ 
olistic  post-office  without  a  deficit?  If  the  timber  famine 
were  as  near  and  as  fearsome  as  we  have  been  told,  who 
shall  measure  the  criminal  folly  of  taxing  the  people  to 
“conserve”  one-fifth  of  their  timber  supply  and  taxing  them 
again  to  provide  bounties  to  hasten  the  destruction  of  the 
other  four-fifths? 

The  terrors  from  which  “conservation”  is  to  save  us  are 
phantoms.  The  evils  which  “conservation”  brings  us  are 
very  real.  Mining  discouraged,  homesteading  brought  to  a 
practical  standstill,  power  development  fined  as  criminal, 
and,  worst  of  all,  a  federal  bureaucracy  arrogantly  meddling 
with  every  public  question  in  a  dozen  great  States — these 
are  some  of  the  things  which  result  from  the  efforts  of  a 
few  well-meaning  zealots  to  install  themselves  as  official 
prophets  and  saviors  of  the  future,  and  from  that  exalted 
station  to  regulate  the  course  of  evolution. 

It  is  no  more  a  part  of  the  Federal  Government’s  busi¬ 
ness  to  enter  upon  the  commercial  production  of  lumber 
than  to  enter  upon  the  commercial  production  of  wheat,  or 
breakfast  bacon,  or  handsaws.  The  Judiciary  Committee  of 
the  Sixtieth  Congress,  reporting  on  the  proposed  Appa¬ 
lachian  reserve,  declared  that  the  sole  ground  on  which 
Congress  could  embark  in  the  forest  business  was  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  navigable  streams.  (Rept.  No.  1514,  60th  Cong., 
1st  sess.)  Will  any  one  pretend  that  a  forest  reserve  on 
the  crest  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  with  the  nearest  navigable 
water  a  thousand  miles  away,  can  be  brought  under  this 
clause?  Even  on  the  Pacific  slope,  I  have  not  heard  that 
the  lumber  mills  of  Washington  have  seriously  impaired 
the  navigability  of  Puget  Sound;  nor  that  the  Golden  Gate 
would  shoal  up  if  the  cutting  of  timber  in  the  Sierras  were 
unchecked.  And  will  the  champions  of  “conservation”  claim 
that  the  Federal  Government  has  greater  rights  and  powers 

in  the  newer  States  than  in  the  older  ones? 

# 

But  the  public  lands  belong  to  the  whole  people.  Un¬ 
doubtedly;  but  in  what  sense  do  they  so  belong?  As  a 
landed  estate,  from  which  to  draw  rentals,  or  as  an  oppor- 


38 


CONSERVATION  OF 


tunity  to  be  used?  Which  interpretation  of  this  ownership 
has  prevailed  in  the  past?  Which  doctrine  caused  the  set¬ 
tlement  of  a  region  as  large  as  half  Europe  within  the  life¬ 
time  of  a  single  generation?  And  passing  this  larger  aspect 
of  the  question,  if  the  “people”  do  own  the  public  lands, 
and  especially  the  “national  forests,”  in  the  sense  of  being 
possessors  of  a  rentable  estate,  are  they  quite  sure  that  it 
will  pay  to  treat  that  estate  in  that  fashion?  The  total 
receipts  from  the  “national  forests”  in  1908  were  $1,842,- 
281.87.  The  expenditures  for  the  same  year  were  $2,526,- 
098.02,  leaving  a  deficit  of  $683,816.15.  If  the  “people” 
really  want  that  deficit  and  would  feel  robbed  without  it 
there  might  be  less  bothersome  ways  of  supplying  their  need 
than  the  maintenance  of  a  federal  bureau.  It  might  be 
cheaper  to  sell  the  estate  on  reasonable  terms  and  trust  to 
the  patriotic  endeavors  of  Congress  to  provide  the  indis¬ 
pensable  deficit. 

Our  natural  resources  have  been  used,  not  wasted.  Waste 
in  one  sense  there  has  been,  to  be  sure;  in  that  a  given  re¬ 
source  has  not  always  been  put  to  its  best  use  as  we  now 
see  that  use.  But  from  Eden  down,  knowledge  has  been 
the  costliest  thing  that  man  could  covet;  and  the  knowledge 
of  how  to  make  the  earth  best  serve  him  seems  well-nigh 
the  most  expensive  of  all.  But  I  think  we  have  made  a 
fair  start  at  the  lesson;  and  considering  how  well  we  have 
already  done  for  ourselves,  the  intrusion  of  a  government 
schoolmaster  at  this  stage  seems  scarcely  needed.  The  pine 
woods  of  Michigan  have  vanished  to  make  the  homes  of 
Kansas;  the  coal  and  iron  which  we  have  failed — thank 
heaven — to  “conserve”  have  carried  meat  and  wheat  to  the 
hungry  hives  of  men  and  gladdened  life  with  an  abundance 
which  no  previous  age  could  know. 

We  have  turned  forests  into  villages,  mines  into  ships 
and  sky  scrapers,  scenery  into  work.  Our  success  in  doing 
the  things  already  accomplished  has  been  exactly  propor¬ 
tioned  to  our  freedom  from  governmental  “guidance,”  and 
I  know  no  reason  to  believe  that  a  different  formula  will 
hold  good  in  the  tasks  that  lie  before.  If  we  can  stop  the 
governmental  encouragement  of  destruction,  conservation 
will  take  care  of  itself. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


39 


To  me  the  future  has  many  problems,  but  no  terrors. 
I  belong  to  the  generation  which  has  seen  the  birth  of  the 
electric  transformer,  the  internal-combustion  engine,  the 
navigation  of  the  air,  and  the  commercial  use  of  aluminum, 
and  I  quite  decline  to  worry  about  what  may  happen  “when 
the  world  busts  through.”  There  is  just  one  heritage  which 
I  am  anxious  to  transmit  to  my  children  and  to  their  chil¬ 
dren’s  children — the  heritage  of  personal  liberty,  of  free 
individual  action,  of  “leave  to  live  by  no  man’s  leave  under¬ 
neath  the  law.”  And  I  know  of  no  way  to  secure  that 

heritage  save  to  sharply  challenge  and  relentlessly  fight 
* 

every  bureaucratic  invasion  of  local  and  individual  rights, 
no  matter  how  friendly  the  mottoes  on  the  invading  ban¬ 
ners. 


Outlook.  93:  770-2.  December  4,  1909. 

The  A  B  C  of  Conservation.  Gifford  Pinchot. 

The  immediate  interest  attaching  to  the  fundamental  prob¬ 
lems  of  conservation  has  led  The  Outlook  to  ask  Mr.  Pinchot 
the  highest  American  authority  on  such  questions,  to  send  to 
it  |or  its  readers  such  positive  and  clear  answers  as  would  give 
the  average  uninformed  citizen  the  reasons  for  this  public  in¬ 
terest.  The  questions  asked  were  these:  1.  What  does  Conser¬ 
vation  stand  for?  2.  What  has  conservation  to  do  with  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  average  man  to-day?  3.  What  is  the  danger  to  the 
conservation  policies  in  the  coming  session  of  Congress?  4.  Why 
is  it  important  to  protect  the  water  powers?  5.  How  must  it 
be  done?  6.  Does  the  same  principle  apply  to  navigable  streams 
as  to  non-navigable?  Mr.  Pinchot’s  answers  as  contained  in  his 
reply  will  be  found  below. — The  Editors. 

The  questions  contained  in  your  letter  of  November  18 
are  well  worth  answering,  and  I  am  glad  to  reply: 

1.  What  does  conservation  stand  for? 

The  central  thing  for  which  conservation  stands  is  to 
make  this  country  the-  best  possible  place  to  live  in,  both 
for  us  and  for  our  descendants.  It  stands  against  the 

waste  of  the  natural  resources  which  cannot  be  renewed, 
such  as  coal  and  iron;  it  stands  for  the  perpetuation  of  the 

resources  which  can  be  renewed,  like  the  food-producing 

soils  and  the  forests;  and,  most  of  all,  it  stands  for  an  equal 
opportunity  for  every  American  citizen  to  get  his  fair 

share  of  benefit  from  these  resources,  both  now  and  here¬ 
after. 


40 


CONSERVATION  OF 


Conservation  stands  for  the  same  kind  of  practical  com¬ 
mon-sense  management  of  this  country  by  the  people  that 
every  business  man  stands  for  in  the  handling  of  his  own 
business.  It  believes  in  prudence  and  foresight  instead  of 
reckless  blindness;  it  holds  that  resources  now  public  prop¬ 
erty  should  not  become  the  basis  for  oppressive  private 
monopoly;  and  it  demands  the  complete  and  orderly  de¬ 
velopment  of  all  our  resources  for  the  benefit  of  all  the 
people  instead  of  the  partial  exploitation  of  them  for  the 
benefit  of  a  few.  It  recognizes  fully  the  right  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  generation  to  use  what  it  needs  and  all  it  needs  of  the 
natural  resources  now  available,  but  it  recognizes  equally 
our  obligation  so  to  use  what  we  need  that  our  descendants 
shall  not  be  deprived  of  what  they  need. 

2.  What  has  conservation  to  do  with  the  welfare  of  the 
average  man  to-day? 

Conservation  has  much  to  do  with  the  welfare  of  the 
average  man  to-day.  It  proposes  to  secure  a  continuous  and 
abundant  supply  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  which  means  a 
reasonable  cost  of  living  and  business  stability.  It  advo¬ 
cates  fairness  in  the  distribution  of  the  benefits  which  flow 
from  the  natural  resources.  It  will  matter  very  little  to  the 
average  citizen  when  scarcity  comes  and  prices  rise,  whether 
he  cannot  get  what  he  needs  because  there  is  none  left  or 
because  he  cannot  afford  to  pay  for  it.  In  both  cases  the 
essential  fact  is  that  he  cannot  get  what  he  needs.  Con¬ 
servation  holds  that  it  is  about  as  important  to  see  that  the 
people  in  general  get  the  benefit  of  our  natural  resources 
as  to  see  that  there  shall  be  natural  resources  left. 

Conservation  is  the  most  democratic  movement  this 
country  has  known  for  a  generation.  It  holds  that  the 
people  have  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  to  control  the 
use  of  the  natural  resources,  which  are  the  great  sources 
of  prosperity.  And  it  regards  the  absorption  of  these  re¬ 
sources  by  the  special  interests,  unless  their  operations  are 
under  effective  public  control,  as  a  moral  wrong.  Con¬ 
servation  is  the  application  of  common  sense  to  the  common 
problems  for  the  common  good,  and  I  believe  it  stands 
nearer  to  the  desires,  aspirations,  and  purposes  of  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


4i 


average  man  than  any  other  policy  now  before  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people. 

3.  What  is  the  danger  to  the  conservation  policies  in 
the  coming  session  of  Congress? 

The  danger  to  the  conservation  policies  in  the  coming 
session  of  Congress  is  that  the  privileges  of  the  few  may 
continue  to  obstruct  the  rights  of  the  many,  especially  in 
the  matter  of  water  power  and  coal.  Congress  must  de¬ 
cide  at  this  session  whether  the  great  coal-fields  still  in  pub¬ 
lic  ownership  shall  remain  so,  in  order  that  their  use  may 
be  controlled  with  due  regard  to  the  interest  of  the  con¬ 
sumer,  or  whether  they  shall  pass  into  private  ownership 
and  be  controlled  in  the  monopolistic  interest  of  a  few. 

Congress  must  decide  also  whether  immensely  valuable 
rights  to  the  use  of  water  power  shall  be  given  away  to 
special  interests  in  perpetuity  and  without  compensation, 
instead  of  being  held  and  controlled  by  the  public.  In  most 
cases,  actual  development  of  water  power  can  best  be  done 
by  private  interests  acting  under  public  control,  but  it  is 
neither  good  sense  nor  good  morals  to  let  these  valuable 
privileges  pass  from  the  public  ownership  for  nothing  and 
forever.  Other  conservation  matters  will  doubtless  re¬ 
quire  action;  but  these  two,  the  conservation  of  water  pow¬ 
er  and  of  coal,  the  chief  sources  of  power  of  the  present 
and  the  future,  are  clearly  the  most  pressing. 

4.  Why  is  it  important  to  protect  the  water  powers? 

It  is  of  the  first  importance  to  prevent  our  water  powers 
from  passing  into  private  ownership  as  they  have  been  do¬ 
ing,  because  the  greatest  source  of  power  we  know  is  falling 
water.  Furthermore,  it  is  the  only  great  unfailing  source  of 
power.  Our  coal,  the  'experts  say,  is  likely  to  be  exhausted 
during  the  next  century,  our  natural  gas  and  oil  in  this. 
Our  rivers,  if  the  forests  on  the  watersheds  are  properly 
handled,  will  never  cease  to  deliver  power.  Under  our 
form  of  civilization,  if  a  few  men  ever  succeed  in  controlling 
the  sources  of  power,  they  will  eventually  control  all  industry 
as  well.  '  If  they  succeed  in  controlling  all  industry,  they 
will  necessarily  control  the  country.  This  country  has 
achieved  political  freedom;  what  our  people  are  fighting  for 
now  is  industrial  freedom.  And  unless  we  win  our  in- 


42 


CONSERVATION  OF 


dustrial  liberty  we  cannot  keep  our  political  liberty.  I  see 
no  reason  why  we  should  deliberately  keep  on  helping  to 
fasten  the  handcuffs  of  corporate  control  upon  ourselves 
for  all  time  merely  because  the  few  men  who  would  profit 
by  it  most  have  heretofore  had  the  power  to  compel  it. 

5.  How  must  it  be  done? 

The  essential  things  that  must  be  done  to  protect  the 
water  powers  for  the  people  are  few  and  simple.  First, 
the  granting  of  water  powers  forever,  either  on  non-navigable 
or  navigable  streams,  must  absolutely  stop.  It  is  perfectly 
clear  that  one  hundred,  fifty,  or  even  twenty-five  years  ago 
our  present  industrial  conditions  and  industrial  needs  were 
completely  beyond  the  imagination  of  the  wisest  of  our 
predecessors.  It  is  just  as  true  that  we  cannot  imagine 
or  foresee  the  industrial  conditions  and  needs  of  the  future. 
But  we  do  know  that  our  descendants  should  be  left  free 
to  meet  their  own  necessities  as  they  arise.  It  cannot  be 
right,  therefore,  for  11s  to  grant  perpetual  rights  to  the  one 
great  permanent  source  of  power.  It  is  just  as  wrong  as 
it  is  foolish,  and  just  as  needless  as  it  is  wrong,  to  mortgage 
the  welfare  of  our  children  in  such  a  way  as  this.  Water 
powers  must  and  should  be  developed  mainly  by  private 
capital,  and  they  must  be  developed  under  conditions  which 
make  investment  in  them  profitable  and  safe.  But  neither 
profit  nor  safety  requires  perpetual  rights,  as  many  of  the 
best  water  power  men  now  freely  acknowledge. 

Second,  the  men  to  whom  the  people  grant  the  right  to 
use  water  power  should  pay  for  what  they  get.  The  water 
power  sites  now  in  the  public  hands  are  enormously  valu¬ 
able.  There  is  no  reason  whatever  why  special  interests 
should  be  allowed  to  use  them  for  profit  without  making 
some  direct  payment  to  the  people  for  the  valuable  rights 
derived  from  the  people.  This  is  important  not  only  for 
the  revenue  the  Nation  will  get.  It  is  at  least  equally  im¬ 
portant  as  a  recognition  that  the  public  control  their  own 
property  and  have  a  right  to  share  in  the  benefits  arising 
from  its  development. 

There  are  other  ways  in  which  public  control  of  water 
power  must  be  exercised,  but  these  two  are  the  most  im¬ 
portant. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


43 


6.  Does  the  same  principle  apply  to  navigable  streams 
as  to  non-navigable? 

Water  power  on  non-navigable  streams  usually  results 
from  dropping  a  little  water  a  long  way.  In  the  mountains 
water  is  dropped  many  hundreds  of  feet  upon  the  turbines 
which  move  the  dynamos  that  produce  the  electric  current. 
Water  power  on  navigable  streams  is  usually  produced  by 
dropping  immense  volumes  of  water  a  short  distance,  as 
twenty  feet,  fifteen  feet,  or  even  less.  Every  stream  is  a 
unit  from  its  source  to  its  mouth,  and  the  people  have  the 
same  stake  in  the  control  of  water  power  in  one  part  of  it 
as  in  another.  Under  the  Constitution  the  United  States 
exercises  direct  control  over  navigable  streams.  It  exer¬ 
cises  control  over  non-navigable  and  source  streams  only 
through  its  ownership  of  the  lands  through  which  they  pass, 
as  in  the  public  domain  and  national  forests.  It  is  just  as 
essential  for  the  public  welfare  that  the  people  should  re¬ 
tain  and  exercise  control  of  water  power  monopoly  on 
navigable  as  on  non-navigable  streams.  If  the  difficulties 
are  greater,  then  the  danger  that  •  the  water  powers  may 
pass  out  of  the  people’s  hands  on  the  lower  navigable  parts 
of  the  streams  is  greater  than  on  the  upper  non-navigable 
parts,  and  it  may  be  harder,  but  in  no  way  less  necessary, 
to  prevent  it. 

These  answers  to  your  questions  will,  I  hope,  give  you 
the  information  for  which  you  wrote.  It  must  be  clear  to 
any  man  who  has  followed  the  development  of  the  con¬ 
servation  idea  that  no  other  policy  now  before  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  is  so  thoroughly  democratic  in  its  essence  and 
in  its  tendencies  as  the  conservation  policy.  It  asserts  that 
the  people  have  the  right  and  the  duty,  and  that  it  is  their 
duty  no  less  than  their  right,  to  protect  themselves  against 
the  uncontrolled  monopoly  of  the  natural  resources  which 
yield  the  necessaries  .of  life.  We  are  beginning  to  realize 
that  the  conservation  question  is  a  question  of  right  and 
wrong,  as  any  question  must  be  which  may  involve  the 
difference,  between  prosperity  and  poverty,  health  and  sick¬ 
ness,  ignorance  and  education,  well-being  and  misery,  to 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  families.  Seen  from  the  point 
of  view  of  human  welfare  and  human  progress,  questions 


44 


CONSERVATION  OF 


which  begin  as  purely  economic  often  end  as  moral  issues. 
Conservation  is  a  moral  issue  because  it  involves  the  rights 
and  the  duties  of  our  people — their  rights  to  prosperity  and 
happiness,  and  their  duties  to  themselves,  to  their  descend¬ 
ants,  and  to  the  whole  future  progress  and  welfare  of  this 
Nation. 


Review  of  Reviews.  41:  14-7.  January,  1910. 

Is  there  a  “Power  Trust”? 

✓ 

A  great  deal  of  discussion  has  been  current  in  news¬ 
papers  and  periodicals  regarding  the  so-called  “power  trust” 
that  is  said  to  be  buying  up  all  the  principal  opportunities  in 
the  country  for  water-power  development.  Some  writers 
are  so  mysterious  and  vague  in  their  allusions  to  this  “trust” 
that  the  reader  who  is  familiar  with  practical  business  af¬ 
fairs  might  naturally  wonder  how  so  large  an  enterprise 
could  be  carried  on  without  a  proper  name,  a  business  office, 
or  even  a  post-office  address.  When  some  of  those  who 
speak  of  water-power  trusts  are  asked  to  be  specific,  they 
do  not  seem  to  know  the  names  of  any  power  companies, 
nor  the  geographical  location  of  any  water  powers,  unless 
it  be  Niagara  Falls.  Those  more  exactly  informed  point  to 
the  General  Electric  Company  and  the  Westinghouse  Com¬ 
pany, — both  of  which  manufacture  electrical  machinery  and 
appliances  on  a  vast  scale, — as  the  chief  culprits  in  this 
“octopus”  game  of  gathering  in  all  the  water-powers. 

There  are  certain  facts,  easily  ascertained,  that  the  fair- 
minded  reader  ought  to  understand.  In  the  first  place,  the 
development  of  a  large  water-power  is  a  very  expensive  un¬ 
dertaking,  usually  costing  much  more  than  the  sum  orig¬ 
inally  estimated,  and  requiring  a  long  period  of  waiting 
before  the  investment  makes  return  in  dividends.  Such 
enterprises  cannot  properly  engage  the  savings  of  small 
investors,  nor  can  the}^  look  to  the  resources  of  people 
of  wealth  who  prefer  safe  and  stable  opportunities  for  the 
use  of  their  capital.  The  reason  why  the  same  names  appear 
in  the  directorates  of  a  number  of  different  water-power 
and  electric  companies  is  because  certain  men  of  large  re- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


45 


sources  have  specialized  in  that  kind  of  business,  and  have 
initiated  or  financed  different  power  enterprises  in  various 
parts  of  the  country.  To  assert  that  these  gentlemen  are 
doing  harm  rather  than  good,  would  seem  to  us  a  highly 
fanciful  and  quite  topsy-turvy  way  of  dealing  with  the  facts. 
There  is  hardly  any  other  respect  in  which  capitalists  can 
so  much  help  a  particular  region  directly, — and  our  country 
itself  indirectly, — as  in  finding  a  great  water-pow'er  running 
to  waste  and  harnessing  it  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  elec¬ 
tric  light,  electric  transportation,  and  the  power  that  oper¬ 
ates  factories  and  mills.  To  do  this  work  is  beneficent  be¬ 
cause  it  saves  the  waste  of  fuel  from  our  coal  beds,  which 
are  being  too  rapidly  exhausted;  of  wood  from  our  forests, 
which  are  being  too  rapidly  swept  away;  of  petroleum  from 
those  hidden  reservoirs  that  are  all  too  soon  pumped  out, 
— besides  lessening  the  toil  of  thousands  of  men,  women, 
and  children,  and  relieving  other  thousands  of  patient  horses 
from  the  drudgery  that  was  theirs  before  the  electric  age. 
Indeed,  it  is  a  work  of  saving  all  around. 

If  the  General  Electric  Company  and  the  Westinghouse 
Company  have  become  interested  in  the  development  of 
power  and  electric  plants  where  water  can  be  made  to 
operate  dynamos  they  would  seem  to  us  to  have  been 
showing  commendable  enterprise.  It  would  be  easy,  how¬ 
ever,  to  show  that  in  a  good  many  cases  this  connection 
has  been  reluctant  rather  than  eager.  These  great  com¬ 
panies  have  had  to  protect  their  sales  of  machinery  and 
supplies  by  taking  part  payment  in  bonds  or  stocks  or  by 
subsequent  acquisitions  of  title  due  to  the  inability  of  local 
companies  to  go  on  with  unfinished  projects.  The  West¬ 
inghouse  Company  itself  could  not  escape  a  receivership 
in  October,  1907, — although  perfectly  solvent  and  doing 
the  largest  business  in  its  history, — because  so  many  of  its 
customers  had  paid  in  stocks  and  bonds.  That  these  prop 
erties  were  justified  by  a  real  public  need  was  later  demon¬ 
strated,  and  the  receiver  was  discharged  on  December  5, 
1908.  But  in  the  interval  the  banks  had  been  unwilling  to 
carry 'the  load.  When  such  instances  are  looked  into  it 
will  appear  that  these  great  companies,  and  certain  bankers 
and  financiers  in  our  large  cities,  far  from  having  insidiously 


46 


CONSERVATION  OF 


grabbed  the  water-powers  of  a  given  State  or  community, 
have  earned  the  thanks  of  the  localities  they  have  entered 
by  their  usefulness  in  financing  and  engineering  projects 
that  have  been  of  great  benefit  to  the  communities  within 
reach  of  the  electric  transmission  of  power.  No  one  can 
object  to  inquiries,  conducted  by  the  Bureau  of  Corpora¬ 
tions,  into  the  ramifications  of  water-power  control  by 
affiliated  corporations  or  associated  groups  of  capitalists. 
But  we  ought  in  this  country  to  rid  ourselves  of  a  very 
petty  and  antiquated  sort  of  prejudice  against  the  large  way 
of  doing  business. 

Ours  is  a  large  country,  with  a  vast  development  of 
wealth.  This  wealth  is  so  massed  and  specialized  that  it 
can  bring  to  pass  great  and  beneficent  results.  The  reme¬ 
dies  against  the  dangers  of  monopolistic  tendency  do  not 
lie  in  the  disintegration  of  capital,  or  in  attacks  upon  large 
associated  enterprises.  The  remedy  lies  rather  in  direct 
regulation  and  control  in  the  public  interest.  Let  those 
who  have  the  capital  and  the  ability  develop  our  water- 
powers.  The  rivers  will  continue  to  flow  in  their  natural 
channels,  and  the  cataracts  cannot  be  removed  bodily  to 
Wall  Street.  The  water-power  company  will  always  be 
dependent  upon  the  patronage  of  the  region  tributary  to  the 
particular  water-power  in  question,  even  more  than  the  com¬ 
munity  will  ever  be  dependent  upon  the  company  that  de¬ 
velops  and  sells  the  power.  If  Mr.  Ballinger’s  principles 
of  regulation  and  control  are  accepted  by  Congress,  as 
they  ought  to  be  in  the  present  session,  we  should  have  an 
end  of  the  talk  about  a  “power  trust”  invading  the  public 
domain.  If  the  principles  that  the  New  York  State  Com¬ 
mission  proposes  to  practice,  with  the  sanction  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature,  should  go  into  effect,  a  fine  example  would  be  set 
that  other  States  could  follow.  Every  State  for  itself  would 
have  it  in  its  power  from  time  to  time  in  the  future  to 
protect  its  people  from  any  possible  encroachment  by  a 
trust  or  combination  exploiting  the  power  of  streams  as 
a  commercial  resource. 

At  the  present  time,  generally  speaking,  water-powers 
have  very  little  value  beyond  that  which  the  developing 
companies  create  by  risking  the  capital  necessary  for  de- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


47 


velopment  and  by  large  outlays  for  machinery  and  plants. 
Any  future  “unearned  increment”  appertaining  to  the 
monopolized  control  of  water-power  is  always  within  grasp 
of  the  community  itself  through  the  principle  of  taxation. 
If,  in  addition  to  the  principle  of  taxation,  the  National  or 
State  government  uses  the  principle  of  the  lease  with  peri¬ 
odic  revaluing,  there  can  be  no  possible  danger  to  the  gen¬ 
eral  interest.  The  conservation  of  so  many  other  things 
depends  upon  our  utilizing  water-power  that  the  burden 
of  proof  should  be  wholly  upon  those  who  would  do  any¬ 
thing  to  check  or  retard  the  building  of  dams  and  the  elec¬ 
trical  transmission  of  power. 


AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 


Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  33:  566-82.  May,  1909. 

The  Scope  of  State  and  Federal  Legislation  Concerning  the 
Use  of  Waters.  Charles  Edward  Wright. 

One  of  the  leading  defects  of  the  confederation  of  the 
American  Colonies,  after  the  accomplishment  of  independ¬ 
ence,  was  the  want  of  power  in  the  congresses  to  regulate 
commerce,  and  this,  as  much  as  any  single  cause,  “con¬ 
duced  to  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,”  as  Mr. 
Justice  Story  says  in  his  “Commentaries  on  the  Constitu¬ 
tion.”  The  power  “to  regulate  commerce,”  conferred  on 
the  Congress  of  the  Federal  Government  by  the  eighth  sec¬ 
tion  of  Article  I  of  the  Constitution  embraces  the  exclusive 
control  of  navigation.  (Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1.) 
The  organic  source  of  federal  authority  in  the  control  of 
waters  is  in  this  section;  the  limitation  of  its  power  is  that 
farthermost  bound  which  marks  the  beginning  of  things 
not  well  within  operation  of  a  regulation  concerning  com¬ 
merce  among  the  states  or  with  a  foreign  nation  or  an 
Indian  tribe. 

All  that  absolute  right  to  regulate  commerce  and  navi¬ 
gation  carried  on  within  their  waters,  or  to  improve  naviga¬ 
tion  on  intra-territorial  streams,  as  well  as  such  power  over 
non-navigable  waters,  as  existed  in  the  government  of 
the  mother  country,  passed  to  the  several  colonies  upon 
the  acknowledgment  of  their  independence.  Title  to  the 
water  and  to  the  subjacent  soil  belonged  to  these  several 
states,  subject  to  the  local  laws  and  usages  governing  ri¬ 
parian  rights,  and  was  not  surrendered  at  the  adoption  of 

the  Constitution.  The  Federal  Government,  for  purposes 

# 

of  commerce,  merely  acquired  a  paramount  right  to  control 
all  waters,  intra-  or  inter-state,  capable  of  supporting  navi¬ 
gation  among  these  units  of  the  Union.  In  theory,  it  has 


50 


CONSERVATION  OF 


power  to  conserve  the  public  usufruct  in  waters  so  far 
as  navigation  is  concerned — its  jurisdiction  ceasing  at  this 
point.  The  mode  of  the  exercise  of  this  power  is  left 
to  the  Congress  with  no  limitation  beyond  that  suggested 
by  the  purpose  of  the  grant — to  regulate  commerce.  Con¬ 
gress  has  the  right  to  improve  navigation;  it  may  do.  this 
by  dredging  or  by  the  erection  of  dams  with  locks,  or  by 
either;  or,  it  may  do  all  things  necessary  to  induce  or  regu¬ 
late  suitable  stream  flow  through  storage  or  head-waters, 
and  it  is  believed,  through  the  conservation  of  those  reser¬ 
voirs  established  by  nature,  the  forests.  Any  and  all 
methods  which  have  the  primary  purpose  of  aiding  or  facili¬ 
tating  transportation  by  water  are  within  the  scope  of  fed¬ 
eral  legislative  power. 

While  this  power  o.f  quasi-sovereignty  over  navigable 
waters  was  transferred  from  the  crown  to  the  colonies,  and 
afterward  delegated  by  the  latter  to  the  National  Govern¬ 
ment,  the  common  law  definition  of  a  navigable  watercourse, 
for  a  very  obvious  reason,  was  not  a  part  of  the  acquisition. 
In  the  mother  country,  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide  consti¬ 
tuted  the  determining  factor,  while  here  it  is  always  a 
question  of  fact  whether  a  stream  be  navigable  or  otherwise. 
Such  great  natural  waterways,  extending  their  courses 
hundreds  of  miles  from  the  sea,  like  the  Mississippi  or  the 
Ohio,  were  unknown  in  England;  and  to  such  conditions, 
the  common  law  doctrine  was  plainly  inapplicable. 

Over  those  streams  or  bodies  of  water  incapable  of  use 
for  the  purposes  of  trade  or  commerce  in  any  way,  the  United 
States  has  no  jurisdiction  except  in  a  single  respect  later  to 
be  mentioned.  Of  course,  in  those  parts  where  the  terri¬ 
torial  form  of  government  still  exists,  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  is  both  sovereign  and  proprietor  as  to  such  waters. 
It  has  the  jus  publicum  and  the  jus  privatum.  Upon  the 
admission  of  territories  to  statehood,  this  dual  right  is  re¬ 
linquished  to  the  state  subject  to  such  prior  grants  as  the 
Federal  Government  has  made  and  generally  upon  the 
condition  that  the  waters  shall  remain  highways  free  to  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  new  states  acquire  the 
same  rights,  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  as  were  reserved 
to  the  thirteen  original  states  at  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


5i 


stitution.  (Pollard  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212.)  Generally 
speaking,  then,  each  state  has  absolute  sovereignty  over 
non-navigable  waters  within  its  boundaries,  as  well  as  title 
to  and  dominion  over  navigable  streams  qualified  only  by 
the  prerogatives  surrendered  to  the  Federal  Government — 
the  paramount  control  of  the  waters  for  navigation  purposes. 
To  the  latter,  all  else  must  yield. 

Aside  from  the  adaptability  of  waters  to  the  transporta¬ 
tion  of  commerce,  streams  are  mainly  valuable  as  a  source 
of  power  production  and  domestic  water  supply,  and,  in  the 
arid  regions,  for  irrigation  purposes.  The  state,  generally, 
has  control  of  the  use  of  water  in  these  respects,  so  far  as 
any  jus  publicum  is  concerned. 

The  eastern  seaboard  states  inherited  the  common  law 
rule  of  riparian  rights.  A  grant  of  land  bordering  on  a  non- 
navigable  watercourse  carried  ownership  to  the  centre  or 
thread  of  the  stream,  subject  to  the  public  easement.  That 
is,  the  title  to  the  river  bed  ad  filuni  aquae  is  in  the  riparian 
proprietors,  not  in  common,  but  in  severalty.  Each  propri¬ 
etor  has  an  equal  right  to  the  use  of  the  water  which  flows 
in  the  stream  adjacent  to  his  land,  as  it  was  wont  to  run, 
without  diminution  or  alteration.  He  has  no  property  in 
the  water;  only  a  mere  usufruct  as  it  passes.  He  may  not 
detain  it,  or  divert  it  to  the  prejudice  of  other  proprietors, 
up  stream  or  down,  save  in  some  cases  where  he  has  a  prior 
right  or  title  to  some  exclusive  enjoyment.  He  may  divert 
it  or  a  part  of  it  provided  he  returns  it  to  its  usual  channel 
as  it  leaves  his  estate.  But  the  maxim  usually  applicable 
is  “Aqua  currit  et  debet  currere  ut  currere  solebat.” 

Ownership  of  lands  upon  the  borders  of  a  navigable 
stream,  at  common  law,  involved  another  rule:  the  boundary 
of  the  grant  was  the  high  water  mark.  The  rule,  however, 
is  not  applied  in  all  the  states.  In  some  states  it  is  held 
that  riparian  proprietorship  extends  to  low-water  mark, 
while  in  many  the  rule  is  the  same  as  to  both  navigable  and 
non-navigable  streams — ownership  of  the  bed  of  the  stream 
ad  fijum  aquae ,  subject  to  the  public  easement  in  the  waters. 
Where  the  riparian’s  line  extends  to  high  or  low-water 
mark,  title  to  the  river  bed  is  in  the  state.  As  to  the  water 
itself,  the  state,  whose  interest  is  that  of  a  sovereign,  holds 


52 


CONSERVATION  OF 


the  property  in  the  stream  as  a  trustee  for  the  public,  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  rights  of  the  United  States,  if  it  be  a  navigable 
stream,  and  to  the  rights  of  the  riparian  proprietor.  The 
rights  of  the  latter,  however,  must  yield  to  the  exercise  of 
the  police  power  of  the  state  when  the  public  welfare  and 
health  are  in  jeopardy.  Aside  from  navigation,  then,  the 
state  and  the  owners  of  the  land  by  which  it  passes  are  the 
only  parties  which  have  an  interest  in  such  waters.  Dis¬ 
putes  between  riparians  are  settled  in  the  state  courts. 
Needful  regulations  concerning  pollution,  etc.,  are  within 
the  scope  of  the  legislative  powers  of  the  state,  as  are  also 
mill  acts,  the  maintenance  of  ferries,  the  erection  of  bridges, 
etc.  It  is  even  competent  for  a  state,  in  the  absence  of 
adverse  action  by  the  Federal  Government,  to  improve 
navigation  in  those  streams  which  are  clearly,  in  that  re¬ 
spect,  within  the  federal  jurisdiction.  Likewise,  and  under 
such  conditions,  prior  to  federal  legislation  on  the  subject, 
the  state  could  authorize  the  construction  of  dams  or 

r 

bridges.  Of  course  when  either  interfered  with  navigation, 
the  United  States  could  order  the  removal  of  obstructions; 
and  this  without  compensation.  Under  existing  acts  of 
Congress,  however,  dams,  and  other  structures  which  may 
menace  navigation,  may  not  be  erected  in  a  navigable 
stream,  even  if  it  be  wholly  intra-state,  unless  the  location 
and  plans  thereof  be  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War 
and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  of  the  Army.  That  is,  while 
the  state  still  may  authorize  such  a  construction,  the 
authorization  is  ineffective  until  the  location  and  plans  are 
approved  in  the  manner  stated;  and  by  the  Act  of  June  21, 
1906  (34  Stat.  386),  these  officers,  in  approving  the  plans 
and  location  of  a  dam,  the  construction  of  which  is  author¬ 
ized  by  Congress,  possess  the  power  to  impose  such  con¬ 
ditions  and  stipulations  as  they  may  deem  necessary  to 
protect  the  present  and  future  interests  of  the  United  States. 

In  some  of  the  western  states,  the  ancient  riparian 
doctrine  yields  to  the  rule  of  prior  appropriation  for  mining 
and  irrigation.  The  requirements  of  mining  invoked  this 
rule,  which  is  rather  of  a  “first  come,  first  served”  nature. 
For  mining  purposes,  it  is  necessary  to  divert  water  from 
the  natural  course  of  its  flow  some  distance  to  the  mineral 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


53 


in  situ.  The  first  appropriates  has  the  better  right,  and  so 
on.  The  protection  of  these  rights  gave  rise  to  numerous 
regulations  and  customs,  which  have  been  recognized  by 
the  state  courts.  Similar  conditions  in  the  arid  regions 
induced  the  abandonment  of  the  riparian  doctrine — although 
in  some  of  the  states  there  is  a  mixed  application  of  the  old 
and  new  rule. 

The  adjustment  of  all  these  rights  is  the  subject  of  state 
control.  The  Federal  Government  is  a  bystander  unless  in¬ 
terference  with  navigation  is  threatened  or  unless,  as  it  may 
be,  it  is  a  riparian  proprietor  or  appropriator  itself;  in  which 
latter  event  its  interest  is  merely  that  of  any  private  owner. 

Conflicting  water  rights  are  fruitful  sources  of  local 
litigation;  flowage,  diversion,  nuisances,  etc.  Here,  the  state, 
through  its  courts,  is  the  adjuster.  Through  its  legislature, 
it  may  regulate  just  so  far  as  regulation  does  not  involve 
the  abrogation  of  vested  rights.  The  public  interest  is 
fundamental  and  the  “private  property  of  riparian  pro¬ 
prietors  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  deeper  roots.”  (Hud¬ 
son  Water  Co.  v.  McCarter,  209  U.  S.  349.)  Nevertheless, 
private  ownership  is  often  the  stumbling  block  in  the  way 
of  legislation  that  would  promote  the  interests  of  the  people 
as  a  whole,  because  the  line  where  the  state’s  police  power, 
exercised  without  compensation,  properly  ends,  and  where 
its  exercise  of  eminent  domain,  with  compensation,  must 
begin,  is  not  always  perspicuous.  The  circumstance  of  own¬ 
ing  land  bounded  by  a  stream  gives  the  owner  an  advantage 
— a  right — in  that  which  should  be  the  property  of  all 
alike,  and  which  in  some  states  is  declared  to  be  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  the  state:  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Constitution  of 
Wyoming: 

The  water  of  all  natural  streams,  springs,  lakes  or  other  col¬ 
lections  of  still  water,  within  the  boundaries  of  the  state,  are 
[sic]  hereby  declared  to  be  the  property  of  the  state. 

The  Constitutions  of  Colorado  and  North  Dakota  contain 
similar  provisions,  and  the  Constitutions  of  California  and 
Washington  declare  the  use  of  waters  for  irrigation,  mining 
and  manufacturing  purposes  to  be  a  public  use;  but  this 
is  one  of  the  very  few  subjects  not  covered  by  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  Oklahoma. 

Yet  even  where  declared  to  be  “the  property  of  the 


54 


CONSERVATION  OF 


state,”  the  appropriates  of  the  water  acquires  a  distinct  title; 
not  perhaps  as  a  mere  incident  to  the  soil,  as  in  the  case  of 
a  riparian  owner,  but  still  a  distinct  usufructuary  estate  based 
upon  the  actual  appropriation;  a  property  right  which  may 
not  be  taken  or  damaged  for  public  or  private  use  without 
just  compensation. 

The  same  basic  principle  exists  in  the  Australian  Com¬ 
monwealth  of  Victoria;  but  there  it  is  carried  out  to  its 
legitimate  conclusion.  No  one  may  permanently  divert  wa¬ 
ter;  a  license  is  granted  for  a  limited  period.  And  no  di¬ 
version  is  free.  Every  user  pays  for  what  he  uses,  the 
charges  being  apportioned  to  the  amount  diverted  and  the 
value  of  the  diversion  to  the  user.  For  the  development 
of  hydro-electric  power,  for  instance,  the  annual  charge  is 
about  five  dollars  per  H.  P.  A  large  revenue  is  thus  pro¬ 
duced,  relieving  the  general  taxpayer.  The  justice  of  this 
plan  is  apparent;  he  who  enjoys  pays  therefor,  and  he  who 
has  an  equal  right  in  the  water  but  cannot  use  it,  is  in¬ 
directly  the  beneficiary  of  the  rental  paid  by  the  user;  for 
general  taxation  is  reduced.  Moreover,  the  user  has  an 
economic  reason  for  avoiding  waste;  he  must  pay  for  what 
he  diverts.  Every  user  is  a  conservator.  During  the  last 
decade  there  has  not  been  a  single  lawsuit  over  water  rights 
in  Victoria.  Furthermore,  the  Commonwealth  reserves  the 
right  at  any  time  to  apply  the  water  to  a  paramount  use 
whenever  the  necessity  arises.  Naturally  there  are  no 
“vested  rights”  to  figure  largely  in  the  matter  of  compen¬ 
sation.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  riparian  right  in  this 
progressive  British  colony.  On  substantially  all  streams 
a  frontage  of  from  four  to  eight  rods  is  reserved  as  public 
land.  This  solves  the  pollution  problem  and  in  other  ways 
simplifies  the  conservation  of  the  public’s  rights  in  the 
water. 

As  far  as  the  rights  of  the  American  public  in  the  free 
navigation  of  its  streams  are  concerned,  they  are  happily 
conserved  because  they  are  paramount  and  supersede  any 
right  in  the  private  owner  of  the.  adjacent  banks.  But  the 
country  is  now  at  the  threshold  of  a  wonderful  d-evelopment 
of  its  unused  water  power  to  be  transmuted  into  electrical 
energy  at  the  mill  site,  and  thence  transmitted  hundreds  of 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


55 


miles  to  a  hundred  uses:  power,  traction,  lighting-,  heating, 
and  the  multifarious  modes  of  employing  this  convenient 
form  of  energy.  With  this  possibility  of  conversion  and 
conduction,  there  is,  at  strategic  points  throughout  the 
country,  potential  water  power  sufficient  to  replace  every 
other  form  of  power  now  in  use  in  manufactures,  transporta¬ 
tion,  and  domestic  economics.  Of  this,  but  a  small  fraction 
is  now  utilized — about  5,300,000  H.  P.  Some  1,400,000  H.  P. 
runs  to  waste  over  government  dams.  Far-sighted  captains 
of  industry,  realizing  what  the  next  generation  will  bring 
forth — reduction  in  the  fuel  supply  with  its  complement,  an 
enhancement  of  cost — and  anticipating  the  advancement  that 
will  come  in  the  art  of  utilizing  hydro-electric  power,  have 
already  seized  advantageous  points,  and  even  now  a  small 
group  of  “interests”  controls  a  third  of  the  present  water¬ 
power  production;  that  is,  produces  power  the  equivalent  of 
that  proportionate  part. 

With  this  portentous  concentration  of  power  production, 
the  states,  in  part,  must  contend.  In  those  states  where,  in 
the  substantive  law  the  waters  are  the  property  of  the 
“state”  or  the  “people,”  the  problem  may  be  more  easily 
solved  than  in  those  older  commonwealths  where  the  mill 
sites  are  in  individual  ownership — if  the  interests  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  are  to  be  conserved.  This,  and  preceding  generations, 
have  realized  the  significance  of  monopoly  in  those  things 
which  are  vital  factors  in  the  lives  of  all  consumers,  whether 
it  be  heat,  light,  food  products,  or  transportation.  Yet  all 
these  united  must  be  multiplied  to  be  tantamount  in  power 
to  the  monopolistic  Colossus  which  is  yet  but  a  suckling, 
nurturing  itself  at  the  breast  of  its  foster-parent,  the  public. 
For  heat,  light  and  transportation,  and  the  power  that  turns 
the  spindles  and  grinds  the  corn,  will  be  the  product  of 
transmuted  water  power  within  the  lifetime  of  our  children. 

While  the  state  should  promote  the  development  of  its 
resources  and  encourage  enterprise  in  the  individual,  the 
superior  right'  of  all  the  citizens  should  be  guarded  by  such 
stipulations  and  conditions  in  every  grant  of  franchise  as 
will  prevent  consolidation  of  control  in  a  few  and  anything 
like  perpetuity  in  enjoyment  of  this  privilege.  The  life  of 
a  franchise  should  be  limited  in  all  cases,  to  a  fixed  term  of 


56 


CONSERVATION  OF 


years,  say  forty  or  fifty  years,  irrevocable  save  for  breach  of 
conditions,  unless  the  state  must  take  the  water  for  a  higher 
use  in  which  event  compensation  must  be  paid.  As  the  grant 
of  a  franchise  proceeds  from  the  many  to  a  few  who  thus 
acquire  special  interests  in  the  common  property,  the  many 
should  be  recompensed  by  the  payment  of  annual  charges 
and  by  a  limitation  upon  the  price  at  which  power  may  be 
sold. 

While  these  things  fall  mainly  within  the  scope  of  the 
state’s  power  to  legislate,  the  field  of  federal  authority  is 
much  greater  than  its  mere  interest  in  navigation  would 
suggest.  Aside  from  the  fact  that  in  improving  navigation 
on  certain  water  courses,  it  develops  incidentally  a  vast 
water  power,  it  also  has  control  of  the  location  and  con¬ 
struction  of  all  dams  across  navigable  streams,  whether  in¬ 
terstate  or  intrastate.  Nor  is  this  all;  as  the  owner  of  lands 
bordering  on  a  stream,  it  has  all  the  rights  of  a  riparian 
proprietor  in  those  states  where  such  rights  are  recognized; 
and,  in  its  duty  to  conserve  navigability  of  waterways,  its 
jurisdiction  is  not  necessarily  limited  to  the  navigable  por¬ 
tions  thereof,  but  may  extend  to  the  headwaters  and  those 
tributaries  which  supply  or  augment  its  flow.  That  is,  if 
the  diversion  or  appropriation  to  any  inferior  private  or 
even  public  use  of  the  waters  of  a  tributary  impairs  or 
menaces  the  navigation  of  the  main  stream,  Congress  has 
power  to  check  or  regulate  or  prevent  such  use.  No  state 
may  so  legislate  as  to  the  appropriation  of  waters  within  its 
boundaries,  even  of  non-navigable  tributaries  which  unite 
into  a  navigable  water  course,  so  as  to  destroy  or  interfere 
with  the  navigability  of  that  water  course  in  derogation 
of  the  interests  of  all  the  people  of  the  United  States.  This 
was  settled  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  United  States  v.  Rio  Grande 
Dam  &  Irrigation  Co.  (174  U.  S.  690). 

A  notable  instance  of  the  exercise  of  the  federal  power 
is  found  in  the  creation  of  the  California  Debris  Commission 
(27  Stat.  507),  in  1893.  The  navigation  of  two  rivers,  each 
within  the  State  of  California,  the  Sacramento  and  the  San 
Joaquin,  was  threatened,  in  part,  practically  destroyed  by 
hydraulic  mining  operations  carried  on  in  the  territory 
drained  by  their  tributaries.  Congress  declared  such  min- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


57 


ing  to  be  unlawful,  unless  the  persons  desirous  of  engaging 
therein  obtained  a  permit  from  the  Debris  Commission,  and 
assented  to  be  bound  by  federal  law  and  regulation.  The 
Commission  had  full  power  to  prescribe  rules,  to  locate 
debris  reservoirs,  impounding  dams,  storage  sites  in  the 
tributaries,  either  for  debris  or  for  water,  and  to  do  all 
things  needful  to  restore  and  maintain  the  navigability  of 
said  rivers,  to  deepen  their  channels,  and  even  to  protect 
their  banks.  These  operations  mainly  affected  the  feeding 
streams,  but  the  power  of  Congress  nevertheless  existed  and 
was  upheld  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  in  North  Bloom¬ 
field  Gravel  Mining  Co.  v.  United  States  (99  Fed.  Rep.  664). 
These  were  operations  not  necessarily  in  a  stream,  but  by 
a  stream,  whereby  silt  and  other  debris  were  carried  by 
the  tributaries  into  the  navigable  rivers  and  therein  de¬ 
posited.  The  act  not  only  affected  those  who  contemplated 
the  establishment  of  such  mining,  but  also  the  owners  of 
then  existing  impounding  works.  The  court  said: 

Congress  has  the  power  and  authority  to  control  commerce 
and  navigation  on  the  navigable  portion  of  the  Sacramento  and 
San  Joaquin  Rivers  and  their  tributaries,  and  to  prevent  any  ob¬ 
struction  on  such  streams,  or  the  performance  of  any  act,  by 
any  person  or  persons  which  would  tend  in  any  manner  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  interstate  or  foreign  commerce. 

While  the  Federal  Government  is  not  authorized  by  the 
Constitution  to  create  a  water  power  for  commercial  pur¬ 
poses,  although  it  undoubtedly  has  a  right  to  do  so  for  its 
own  purposes,  it  is  inevitable  that  in  improving  inland 
streams  by  a  series  of  dams  and  locks  that  water  power  will 
thus  be  created.  Indeed,  nearly  1,400,000  H.  P.  is  now 
running  to  waste  over  government  dams,  constructed  with 
no  other  view  than  that  of  aiding  navigation.  The  govern¬ 
ment  may  not  own  the  water,  but  it  certainly  owns  the 
power  it  thus  creates.  Water  power  is  not  water;  it  is  en- 
ergy  produced  by  the  combination  of  running  water  and  a 
suitable  fall.  Conceding  that  the  corpus,  the  water  itself 
even  in  a  navigable  stream,  is  the  property  of  the  state 
through  which  it  passes,  and  that  the  Federal  Government 
has  no  title  to  it,  still  it  does  enjoy  the  use  and  supreme 
control  of  it  under  its  power  to  regulate  commerce.  In  the 
use  of  it  for  a  constitutional  purpose,  it  may  bring  into 
existence  that  which  was  not  there  before — a  form  of  en- 


53 


CONSERVATION  OF 


ergy.  It  owns  what  it  produces  and  it  may  sell  or  lease  the 
right  to  utilize  its  creature;  and  it  would  certainly  be 
anomalous  if  it  could  not  exact  a  consideration  and  impose 
a  condition  in  making  a  sale  or  a  lease.  A  sale  is  out  of 
the  question,  for  that  would  involve  an  investiture  of  rights 
which  might  later  embarrass  the  government  in  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  its  duty  respecting  navigation.  But  the  disposi¬ 
tion  and  utilization  of  this  power  by  the  grant  of  a  lease¬ 
hold  interest  is  not  only  a  lawful,  but  a  business-like  exer¬ 
cise  of  federal  power.  Leases  imply  a  termination  of  the 
lessee’s  interest  at  a  definite  time  as  well  as  a  charge  regu¬ 
larly  to  be  paid.  Just  as  I  may  impose  conditions  on  my 
lessee  restricting  his  use  of  my  property  or  confining  it  in 
legitimate  channels,  so  may  the  government  restrict  its 
grant  in  a  manner  to  avoid  monopoly.  The  charge  it  may 
impose  may  be  devoted  to  general  governmental  purposes 
to  the  relief  of  taxation  or  be  expended  in  the  further  de¬ 
velopment  of  navigation. 

So,  again,  where  the  government  by  storage  reservoirs, 
artificial  or  natural,  expends  money  to  conserve  the  flow  of 
streams,  it  creates  a  condition  of  value  in  the  production 
of  power.  By  a  natural  storage  reservoir  about  the  head¬ 
waters  of  a  stream,  I  mean  a  forest.  Where  the  govern¬ 
ment  has  reserved  a  great  forest  for  national  purposes, 
expending  money  in  its  protection  and  the  reforestation 
of  its  desolated  areas,  it  is  contributing  as  effectually  to  the 
perpetuity  and  uninterrupted  development  of  power  in  a 
water  course  whose  sources  are  protected  by  these  national 
forests,  as  it  would  by  the  providence  of  artificial  storage. 
The  rivulets  and  creeks  which  spring  from  these  forests 
unite  to  make  in  whole  or  part  the  navigable  watercourse. 
A  corporation  is  granted  the  right  by  the  state  legislature 
or  by  Congress  to  erect  a  dam  on  such  a  stream  for  the 
purpose  of  developing  hydro-electric  power.  Under  the 
federal  law,  it  may  not  proceed  until  the  Secretary  of  War 
and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  approve  not  only  the  location, 
but  the  plans.  Under  the  Act  of  June  21,  1906,  already  no¬ 
ticed,  these  federal  officers  are  authorized  to  finpose  such 
conditions  and  stipulations  as  they  may  deem  “necessary 
to  protect  the  present  and  future  interests  of  the  United 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


59 


States.”  This  power  may  include  the  condition  that  suit¬ 
able  locks  to  conserve  the  navigability  of  the  stream  shall 
be  constructed  and  maintained  by  the  licensee.  But  “condi¬ 
tions  and  stipulations”  need  not  and  should  not  stop  here. 
Not  only  should  a  definite  term  for  the  enjoyment  of  the 
privilege  be  fixed,  but  an  annual  charge  should  be  exacted, 
apportioned,  as  in  Australia,  to  the  horse-power  production 
or,  better  yet,  on  the  basis  of  the  converted  power  reckoned 
in  kilowatt  hours.  Why  not?  A  special  privilege  in  what 
all  the  public  possess  rights  is  enjoyed  by  the  beneficiary. 
The  public  indirectly  contribute  of  their  money  to  maintain 
the  permanence  and  relative  regularity  of  the  stream-flow,  on 
which  power  in  part  depends,  through  its  maintenance  and 
care  of  those  great  natural  conservators  of  moisture,  the 
forests.  The  effect  may  be  great  or  slight,  ,  proximate  or 
remote.  But  it  is  there — a  tangible  asset  of  measurable 
value  to  the  producer  of  power.  In  proportion  to  its  value, 
the  charge  is  capable  of  adjustment. 

Aside  from  this,  another  reason  for  an  annual  charge  is 
suggested  by  the  existence  of  the  lock;  and  in  a  navigable 
stream  blocked  by  a  dam,  a  lock  is  a  necessary  part  of  the 
structure.  In  the  discharge  of  its  duty  to  regulate  com¬ 
merce,  the  government  should  not  delegate  its  obligation 
to  operate  such  a  lock  to  the  power  producer.  Congress 
representing  the  public  and  using  its  money  must  provide 
an  operator  to  tend  the  lock  and  to  expedite  the  transporta¬ 
tion  of  commerce.  The  lock  is  there  because  the  dam  is 

there;  the  dam  is  there  that  an  individual,  a  person  or  a 

corporation,  may  enjoy  certain  privileges  in  what,  of  right, 
belongs  to  the  public.  Should  the  public  pay  the  cost  of 
operating  an  artificial  device  for  the  passage  of  commerce¬ 
laden  •  vessels,  occasioned  by  the  obstruction  of  a  natural 
course  for  the  special  benefit  of  one?  Should  I  pay  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  a  gatekeeper  required  by  my  gratuitous  grant  of 
a  right  of  way  to  another  across  my  premises?  The 
charge  is  not  only  legitimate  and  within  the  power  of  Con¬ 
gress' to  impose,  but  it  is  right  and  proper  that  he  who 

enjoys  the  public’s  property  should  render  recompense  ex¬ 
actly  as  he  would  to  the  private  owner. 

Where  the  Federal  Government  creates  the  power  in 


6o 


CONSERVATION  OF 


whole  or  in  part,  there  is  little  opposition  to  the  imposition 
of  charges.  Despite  the  attitude  of  a  recent  Congress  in 
passing  an  act  conferring  special  privileges  upon  an  indi¬ 
vidual  in  a  certain  navigable  waterway  in  the  West,  without 
any  provision  as  to  the  payment  of  an  annual  charge,  after 
the  President,  in  vetoing  a  similar  measure,  had  announced 
that  he  would  sign  no  bill  that  did  not  thus  provide;  the 
same  Congress  later  conceded  the  point  in  a  case  where  the 
development  of  the  power  itself  is  the  direct  result  of  the 
government’s  operation.  The  recent  Act  of  March  3,  1909 
(Public,  No.  317),  provides  in  part  that  the  right  to  the  flow 
of  water,  and  riparian  water  power  and  other  rights  now  or 
hereafter  owned  by  the  United  States  in  the  Saint  Mary’s 
river,  Michigan,  “shall  be  forever  conserved  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  primarily  for  the 
purposes  of  navigation  and  incidentally  for  the  purpose  of 
having  the  water  power  developed,  either  for  the  direct  use 
of  the  United  States,  or  by  lease  or  other  agreement,  through 
the  Secretary  of  War  .  .  .  Provided,  That  a  just  and  rea¬ 
sonable  compensation  shall  be  paid  for  the  use  of  all  waters 
or  water  power  now  or  hereafter  owned,”  etc.  The  act 
limits  the  term  of  the  lease  to  thirty  years  and  provides  for 
the  readjustment  of  compensation  at  periods  of  ten  years, 
and  again,  doubly  to  assure,  states  that  no  such  rights  shall 
be  granted  “without  just  and  adequate  compensation.” 

The  act  expresses  what  I  urge  is  well  within  the  consti¬ 
tutional  field  of  federal  legislation:  the  right  to  dispose  by 
lease  of  a  water  power  created  by  the  United  States  in  the 
course  of  operations  having  the  primary  purpose  of  im¬ 
proving  or  conserving  navigation.  The  language  is  a  little 
startling  in  its  ingenuous  avowal  that  a  part  of  the  purpose, 
although  incidental,  is  “having  the  water  power  developed.” 
The  Congress  has  no  authority  deliberately  to  create  a 
water  power  for  the  purpose  of  disposing  of  it  by  lease; 
but  if  in  the  discharge  of  its  duty  to  aid  navigation,  it  un¬ 
avoidably  brings  into  existence  such  a  power,  it  has  the 
right  of  any  private  owner  in  disposing  of  its  property, 
subject  always  to  the  superior  right  of  the  public  in  the 
free  navigation  of  the  stream.  The  Congress  may  not 
purposely  develop  a  water  power  save  for  national  needs; 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


61 


but  it  may  purposely  do  things  in  aid  of  navigation  which 
it  well  knows  will  incidentally  result  in  the  creation  of  such 
a  power.  It  may  not  build  a  storage  reservoir  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  the  stability  of  water  power;  but  it 
may  do  so  under  the  guise  of  regulating  commerce.  It 
may  not  acquire  from  private  owners  a  great  forest  about 
the  headwaters  of  a  stream  for  the  purpose  of  conserving 
stream  flow  in  aid  of  power  development;  but  it  has  plenary 
authority  so  to  act  if  the  avowed  purpose  and  certain  effect 
are  to  assist  navigation.  Many  peculiar  things  are  done  in 
the  name  of  liberty;  a  few  have  been  done  in  the  name  of 
the  Constitution. 

But  there  is  another  and  a  larger  class  of  improvements; 
a  class  including  water  power  developed  in  a  navigable 
stream,  under  a  federal  or  local  franchise,  with  the  consent 
of  the  Federal  Government.  Under  the  law  already  no¬ 
ticed,  the  owner  of  the  franchise  may  not  build  his  dam 
until  the  Secretary  of  War. and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  have 
approved  the  location  as  well  as  the  plans;  and  in  the  act 
of  approval  they  may  impose  conditions  and  stipulations 
“necessary  to  protect  the  present  and  future  interests  of  the 
United  States,”  where  the  authority  to  build  the  dam  pro¬ 
ceeds  from.  Congress.  In  these  instances,  the  Government 
does  not  build  the  dam  or  create  the  power.  Perhaps  it  has 
done  naught  in  aid  of  navigation  on  that  stream.  The  water, 
in  theory,  is  the  property  of  the  state  and  not  of  the  nation. 
The  fall  is  provided  by  nature  and  by  the  work  of  man — the 
individual  rather  than  the  public.  The  two  elements  which 
make  the  power  are  there  without  the  aid  of  the  Federal 
Government;  the  latter  owns  nothing — merely  owes  a  duty. 
How,  then,  can  it  impose  a -charge?  Yet  President  Roose¬ 
velt,  in  two  sturdily  patriotic  messages  vetoing  bills  granting 
such  franchises,  declared  that  he  would  sign  no  bill  unless 
the  same  provided,  among  other  things,  that  “There  should 
be  a  license  fee  or  charge  which,  though  small  or  nominal 
at  the  outset,  can  in  the  future  be  adjusted  so  as  to  secure 
a  control  in  the  interest  of  the  public.” 

In  certain  quarters,  it  is  denied  that  the  United  States 
has  power  to  impose  a  charge  in  such  a  case.  It  is  argued 
that  the  charge  would  be  either  a  direct  tax  or  in  the  nature 


62 


CONSERVATION  OF 


of  an  impost  or  excise  tax.  If  the  former,  it  must  be  ap¬ 
portioned  among  the  states  rather  than  levied  directly  by 
the  Federal  Government  itself;  if  the  latter,  it  must  be  uni¬ 
formly  levied  on  every  dam  and  water  power  in  the  entire 
country. 

The  latter  objection,  however,  is  not  altogether  sound. 
Uniformity,  in  the  sense  of  the  constitutional  provision  re¬ 
specting  taxation,  means  a  geographical  uniformity,  the  tax 
operating  on  all  similar  properties.  That  is,  in  every  in¬ 
stance  where  the  Federal  Government  approves  the  location 
and  plans  of  a  dam,  thereby  authorizing  its  construction, 
whether  in  a  navigable  waterway  east,  west,  north  or  south, 
the  tax  must  be  uniformly  laid.  But  a  water  power  de¬ 
veloped  on  a  non-navigable  stream,  without  let  or  license 
from  the  National  Government,  would  stand  in  another  cate¬ 
gory.  Any  rule  of  conformity  would  not  necessarily  in¬ 
volve  the  inclusion  of  such  dams  or  water  power  privileges; 
it  would  merely  require  the  levy  of  .such  a  tax  upon  every 
power  privilege  similarly  authorized  or  confirmed  by  the  Federal 
Government. 

Recurring  to  the  act  of  Congress  establishing  the  Cali¬ 
fornia  Debris  Commission,  already  noticed  in  part,  we  find 
provisions  for  a  “tax”  which  applies  with  no  “geographical 
uniformity”  throughout  the  country,  but  is  restricted  in 
operation  to  only  a  part  of  the  State  of  California. 

Briefly:  The  hydraulic  process  in  mining  may  not  be  em¬ 
ployed  about  the  tributaries  of  certain  navigable  streams  in 
that  state-  without  permit  from  the  commission,  the  permit 
to  be  granted  upon  petition  and  hearing.  The  license,  if 
granted  by  a  majority  of  the  board,  embodies  directions 
and  specifications  in  detail  as  to  the  manner  in  which  opera¬ 
tions  may  proceed;  what  restraining  or  impounding  works 
shall  be  built  and  maintained,  and  where  they  shall  be  lo¬ 
cated;  “and  in  general  set  forth  such  further  requirements 
and  safeguards  as  will  protect  the  public  interests  and  pre¬ 
vent  injury  to  the  said  navigable  rivers,  and  the  lands 
adjacent  thereto,  with  such  further  conditions  and  limita¬ 
tions  as  will  observe  all  the  provisions  of  this  act  in  relation 
to  the  working  thereof  and  the  payment  of  taxes  on  the 
gross  proceeds  of  the  same.  Provided,  That  all  expense 
incurred  in  complying  with  said  order  shall  be  borne  by  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


63 


owner  or  owners  of  such  mine  or  mines.”  (Act  of  March  1, 
1893,  Sec.  13.)  The  “taxes  on  the  gross  proceeds”  are  im¬ 
posed  by  the  twenty-third  section  of  the  act,  which  provides 
that  the  operators  of  the  mines  affected  by  the  act  “shall 
pay  a  tax  of  three  per  centum  on  the  gross  proceeds”  of 
the  mine  so  worked,  said  “tax”  to  be  ascertained  and  paid 
in  accordance  with  regulations  to  be  adopted  by  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Treasury  and  to  be  paid  into  the  Federal  treas¬ 
ury  to  the  credit  of  the  “Debris  Fund,”  which  shall  be  ex¬ 
pended  by  said  commission  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Chief  of  Engineers  and  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War 
in  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  restraining  works 
and  settling  reservoirs  in  aid  of  the  purpose  Congress  had 
in  mind  in  passing  the  act. 

This  act  had  been  held  to  be  constitutional,  as  already 
noted.  Yet  in  terms  it  provides  for  the  collection  of  a  “tax” 
which  is  neither  “apportioned”  among  the  states  nor  is 
levied  by  any  rule  of  uniformity.  Rather  than  a  general 
excise  law,  it  is  one  of  special  and  circumscribed  applica¬ 
tion.  Still,  the  charge  imposed  is  christened  a  “tax.”  If  it 
were  a  tax,  there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the  unconstitutional¬ 
ity  of  the  act.  Wherein  does  such  a  “tax”  differ  from  that 
to  be  charged  upon  the  grant  of  special  privileges  for  power 
purposes  in  a  navigable  stream?  Both  find  their  reason  for 
existence  in  the  conservation  of  navigation,  although  the 
miners  may  be  required  to  pay  for  privileges  connected 
directly  with  non-navigable  intra-state  tributaries,  while  the 
power  producers  operate  directly  in  the  navigable  stream 
itself. 

But  the  charge  is  not  a  “tax”  in  the  constitutional  sense; 
it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  license — the  according  of  a  special 
right  or  privilege  to  do  a  thing,  which,  without  permission, 
would  be  unlawful.  It  is  leave  and  liberty  enjoyed  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  indulgence  at  the  will  of  the  Federal  Government. 
For,  if  the  latter  were  to  withhold  permission,  the  dam 
might  not  be  erected.  And,  in  this  connection,  it  may  now 
be  noted  that  there  is  no  power  to  compel  the  Secretary 
of  War  and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  to  approve  any  location 
or  plan.  The  writ  of  mandamus  would  not  lie  to  compel 
approval,  for  the  function  of  these  officers  is  not  ministerial, 


64 


CONSERVATION  OF 


but  entirely  discretionary.  Congress  placed  no  limitation 
upon  their  power  to  impose  conditions  and  stipulations  as 
to  dams  it  authorizes,  except  that  the  aim  must  be  to  pro¬ 
tect  the  present  and  future  interests  of  the  United  States; 
the  officers  to  be  judges  of  the  necessity  and  wisdom  of  the 
terms. 

The  power  to  charge  for  a  special  privilege  is  not  neces¬ 
sarily  an  exercise  of  the  power  to  tax.  It  is  rather  the 
right  to  exact  a  quid  pro  quox  Public  interests  are  bound 
to  be  jeopardized,  even  though  certain  advantages  to  a  lo¬ 
cality  accrue  from  the  establishment  of  the  power  plant. 
One  has  already  been  suggested — the  operation  of  a  lock; 
for  the  very  fact  that  gives  the  Federal  Government  any 
measure  of  control — viz.,  the  navigability  of  the  stream — in¬ 
volves  the  conservation  of  navigation  through  artificial 
means.  The  charge  imposed  liquidates  this  that  otherwise 
would  be  a  burden  in  the  nature  of  a  tax  upon  the  public. 
Aside  from  this,  another  potential  element  of  cost  to  the 
public  is  involved — the  possibility  that  the  Government  may 
be  obliged  to  remove  the  obstruction  caused  by  the  build¬ 
ing  of  the  dam  at  its  own  cost.  Ordinarily  this  has  been 
guarded  against  by  the  exaction  of  a  bond  in  a  large  penal 
sum,  the  burden  of  carrying  which  is  an  annual  charge  upon 
the  owners  of  the  franchise.  What  vital  objection  can  there 
be  to  the  adoption  of  a  plan  whereby  the  licensee,  in  lieu 
of  annual  tribute  to  a  bonding  company,  pays  such  premiums 
into  the  federal  treasury — a  measure  of  insurance  against 
the  loss  that  might  be  occasioned  were  the  franchise  holder 
bankrupt  and  the  needs  of  navigation  were  to  require  the 
removal  of  the  dam?  The  fund  created  by  the  payment  of 
these  charges  may  be  either  devoted  directly  to  the  better¬ 
ment  of  navigation,  particularly  in  the  removal  of  obstruc¬ 
tions,  or  turned  into  the  Treasury  as  a  part  of  the  general 
fund,  indirectly  serving  the  same  purpose  by  relieving  the 
taxpayer.  If  the  Federal  Government  has  the  power  to 
withhold  approval,  it  has  power  to  bestow  approval  upon 
such  terms  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  impose  in  order 
to  protect  the  present  or  future  interests  of  the  United 
States.  If  it  has  the  power  to  exact  a  bond  to  protect  the 
public  against  loss  when,  in  the  interest  of  navigation,  it 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


65 


becomes  necessary  to  remove  the  obstruction,  it  has  the 
power  to  create  a  fund  for  the  same  purpose.  If  the  public 
in  general  contribute  to  that  fund,  their  contributions  are 
in  the  nature  of  a  tax.  If,  however,  the  special  beneficiaries 
of  the  granted  permission  contribute  to  establish  such  a 
fund,  it  is  not  a  tax,  but  a  license  charge,  the  sole  similarity 
being  that  both  are  a  rendering  to  Caesar  of  the  things  that 
are  Caesar’s. 

Moreover,  it  is  entirely  competent  for  Congress  to  insist 
that  no  privileges  affecting  navigable  streams  shall  be  grant¬ 
ed  to  any  corporation  unless  said  corporation  operates 
under  a  federal  charter.  The  United  States  has  authority 
to  create  a  corporation  as  a  means  of  carrying  into  effect 
any  of  its  sovereign  powers.  (McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4 
Wheat.  316,  41 1.)  Such  a  corporation  may  be  authorized  to 
construct  a  dam  and  lock  in  aid  of  navigation,  and  the  inci¬ 
dentally  developed  power  may  be  disposed  of  by  the  creature 
as  well  as  by  the  sovereign  itself — under  such  terms  and 
conditions  as  Congress  sees  fit  to  impose.  This  would 
bring  every  power  company  using  the  navigable  waters  of 
the  nation  directly  under  the  visitorial  control  of  a  federal 
commission,  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  for  in¬ 
stance,  with  power  to  regulate  charges  and  to  prevent  the 
formation  of  unlawful  or  monopolistic  combinations.  It 
is  only  natural  that  such  companies  should  receive  their 
corporate  animation  from  the  power  which  controls  and 
regulates  interstate  commerce,  because  the  ulterior  purpose 
of  their  being,  thus  created,  would  be  the  production  and 
transmission  of  power,  in  itself  a  feature  of  commerce  which, 
in  its  development  and  utilization,  will  acknowledge  no  state 
bounds.  In  the  incorporation  of  such  companies,  coupled 
with  the  grant  of  these  privileges  in  the  waterways  of  the 
nation,  the  imposition  of  charges,  the  tribute  that  the 
creature  pays  to  its  creator,  will  follow  easily,  logically,  and 
lawfully. 

In  conclusion:  With  non-navigable  streams,  three  parties 
are  .concerned,  (1)  the  riparian,  or  appropriator,  who  has  a 
peculiar  property  interest  therein,  and  (2)  the  state,  which 
may  have  certain  police  duties  to  perform  in  the  conserva¬ 
tion  of  public  welfare,  and  (3)  the  Federal  Government, 


66 


CONSERVATION  OF 


whose  interest  is  strictly  confined  to  such  streams  as  are 
tributaries  of  a  navigable  watercourse  and  then  only  when 
the  navigability  of  the  latter  is  threatened.  With  the  single 
exception  just  noted,  the  state  has  exclusive  jurisdiction  in 
the  realm  of  legislative  activities  affecting  such  streams. 

With  navigable  streams,  the  same  parties  are  concerned, 
but  in  reverse  order:  (i)  the  United  States,  with  the  para¬ 
mount  duty  of  improving  and  maintaining  navigation,  pre¬ 
serving  a  superior  use  in  the  water,  but  without  ownership 
thereof  or  of  the  subjacent  or  adjacent  soil  except  in  the 
occasional  instance  of  riparian  proprietorship;  (2),  the 
state,  whose  interest  is  a  derivative  of  its  sovereignty,  hold¬ 
ing  its  property  therein  as  trustee  for  all  public  uses  save 
navigation,  subrogated  to* the, superior  rights  of  the  Federal 
Government  and  of  such  rights  as  the  riparian  owner  or 
appropriator  may  possess;  and  (3)  the  riparian  owner  or 
appropriator  himself.  The  National  Government  has  legis¬ 
lative  control  of  all  matters  affecting  navigation  primarily 
and,  to  the  extent  already  discussed,  of  the  power  develop¬ 
ment  incidentally,  when  the  latter  affects  the  former;  and 
in  theory  it  is  not  easy  to  divorce  the  twain.  All  else  is 
within  the  scope  of  state  legislation. 

The  federal  power  proceeds  from  its  obligation  to  regu¬ 
late  commerce,  of  which  navigation  is  but  a  part.  The 
prospective  power  development  through  hydro-electric 
agencies  will  be  the  solution  of  many  existing  problems  in¬ 
volving  the  transportation  of  interstate  commerce.  The 
fundamental  physical  power,  to  be  changed  into  an  easily 
transmissible  form  of  energy,  will,  in  the  future,  be  found 
in  the  greater  waterways  of  the  country — the  navigable 
streams.  The  requirements  of  navigation  and  power  de¬ 
velopment  must  be  nicely  adjusted;  the  latter  not  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  former;  the  former  not  to  prevent  the  latter. 
The  state  may  not  oust  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment  in  the  regulation  of  the  former.  If  the  latter  is 
exclusively  a  matter  of  state  regulation,  there  will  be  conflict 
in  adjustment.  The  public  welfare  of  the  whole  nation  is 
involved;  not  that  of  one  state.  Any  uniform  rule  in  the 
grant  of  power  franchises  which  will  abort  monopoly  by 
restricting  the  term  of  the  grant  to  a  definite  time  coupled 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


67 


with  the  exaction  of  a  charge  adjustable  occasionally  as  the 
country’s  welfare  may  demand,  and  with  a  provision  for 
revocation  in  the  event  of  any  attempted  combination  of 
interests  which  would  effect  a  restraint  of  trade,  must,  and 
I  believe  constitutionally  can,  find  its  origin  in  an  act  of 
Congress. 


Conference  of  Governors,  Proceedings. 

Pages  179-83.  James  R.  Garfield. 

Trade  itself  has  wiped  out  in  many  ways  the  State  lines. 
The  use  of  our  natural  resources  and  their  preservation  must 
necessarily  wipe  out  for  some  purposes  the  State  lines. 

That  does  not  for  one  moment  mean  that  these  great 
political  sovereigns,  the  States,  are  losing  anything  of  their 
inherent  rights.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  given  it  under  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  shall  infringe  upon  the  political  or  the  industrial 
or  the  personal  rights  of  those  within  these  States;  but  it 
does  mean  that  in  the  progress  of  our  country  we  have 
found  that  the  powers  given  the  Federal  Government  must 
be  used  to  develop  those  natural  resources  for  the  greatest 
good  to  the  greatest  number  which  do  not  lie  simply  within 
one  State  but  extend  into  several  States,  and  which,  as  in 
the  case  of  water,  must  be  considered  as  for  the  use  of  all 
the  States  within  the  given  watershed  rather  than  for  the 
special  States  through  which  the  water  runs  or  in  which  the 
water  rises. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  in  the  forest  reserves  the 
plans  which  have  been  adopted  by  the  Federal  Government 
may  not  be  along  the  right  line.  We  do  not  for  a  moment 
maintain  that  the  final  word  has  been  said,  that  the  ideal 
law  has  been  passed,  or  that  the  regulations  adopted  can 
not  be  improved.  But  let  me  ask  this  question  in  answer 
to  the  question  put  by  the  Governor  of  Montana — I  be¬ 
lieve  something  to  this  effect:  “Why  should  the  Federal 
Government  charge  for  the  general  use  of  the  Government 
those  people  who  are  using  the  forests;  why  should  not 
that  work  be  paid  for  by  the  Government  as  a  whole  rather 


68 


CONSERVATION  OF 


than  impose  a  charge  upon  those  people  who  have  used  those 
special  reserves?”  I  ask,  as  an  answer  to  that  question, 
Why  should  a  great  resource  owned,  as  the  Gentleman 
admits,  by  the  People  at  large,  be  used  by  private  interests, 
by  somebody  who  is  looking  only  to  his  own  benefit,  and 
not  to  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the  country?  The  princi¬ 
ple  applies  not  only  in  the  forest  reserves,  so  far  as  grazing 
is  concerned;  it  applies  equally  well  to  the  use  of  the  water 
powers  of  this  country,  in  the  conservation  first,  and  after¬ 
ward  in  the  use  of  those  water  powers. 


Electrical  World.  56:  651.  September  22,  1910. 

State  or  National  Conservation? 

There  seems  to  be  a  general  agreement  that  our  natural 
resources  are  in  sad  need  of  conservation,  but  the  friends 
of  the  conservation  policy  are  apparently  becoming  divided 
into  two  hostile  camps,  one  holding  to  the  idea  of  National 
control,  the  other  utterly  repudiating  it  and  insisting  that 
the  States,  and  the  States  only,  have  a  right  to  deal  with 
the  matter..  It  is  the  old  doctrine  of  States’  rights  in  an¬ 
other  of  its  innumerable  phases.  A  letter  from  Mr.  Percy 
H.  Thomas  in  the  current  issue  brings  to  notice  an  inter¬ 
esting  situation  which  seems  not  unlikely  to  arise  at  any 
time  and  which  has  an  .important  bearing  on  the  question 
of  responsibility  in  conservation.  The  hypothetical  case  is 
that  of  the  conflict  of  hydraulic  rights  on  an  interstate 
stream.  Suppose  under  State  authority  vested  rights  had 
been  secured  and  development  had  been  made  near  the 
State  border.  Next,  assume  a  later  development  with  large 
storage  capacity  a  short  distance  upstream,  but  over  the 
border  of  the  State.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  later 
upstream  plant  in  utilizing  its  storage  could  practically 
cripple  the  older  plant  further  down,  and  in  the  normal 
course  of  operations,  without  any  malicious  intent,  would 
be  very  likely  to  do  so.  We  call  to  mind  several  streams 
in  which  this  situation  is  very  likely  to  arise.  *  Now,  if  the 
hydraulic  laws  in  the  respective  States  happen  to  be  identi¬ 
cal,  the  rights  of  the  parties  would  be  very  easily  deter- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


69 


mined,  but  if  they  were  materially  different  questions  would 
probably  arise  which  could  be  solved  only  with  great  diffi¬ 
culty,  particularly  if  the  stream  did  not  happen  to  be  a 
navigable  one. 

Rights  of  interstate  streams  have  been  from  time  to  time 
before  the  courts  in  long-drawn  litigation,  but  there  is  not 
yet  any  body  of  precedent  which  seems  to  be  capable  of 
dealing  with  perfectly  possible  cases  of  interference  which 
are  very  likely  to  arise.  Congress  undoubtedly  has  authority 
to  legislate  on  the  subject  under  its  general  interstate 
authority,  even  if  the  stream  is  not  a  navigable  one;  but 
unless  it  does  so  a  situation  might  arise  at  any  time  which 
would  be  perilously  acute,  if,  following  a  line  of  development 
which  is  now  well  marked  out,  the  upstream  plant  in  our 
supposed  case  should  be  owned  by  the  State  and  leased  to 
an  operating  company.  The  private  corporation  downstream 
would  then  find  its  path  through  the  courts  blocked  in  a 
conflict  with  a  sovereign  State.  Such  possibilities  point 
strongly  toward  the  Federal  control  in  spite  of  the  very 
natural  tendency  to  depend  in  such  cases  on  the  police 
powers  of  the  State  and  local  self-government.  There  are 
many  streams  along  the  Appalachian  and  Rocky  Mountain 
watersheds  which  might  become  involved  in  the  situation 
that  our  correspondent  considers. 

In  still  other  ways,  interstate  difficulties  may  be  found 
in  the  conservation  situation  from  the  hydraulic  standpoint. 
It  may  be  necessary  or  desirable  to  safeguard  the  water¬ 
sheds  of  one  State  in  order  to  protect  the  water-powers  of 
another,  a  situation  in  which  National  control  would  be 
effective,  while  action  by  the  States  would  probably  be  very 
difficult  to  secure.  These  facts  bear  heavily  against  State 
control,  even  supposing  that  efficient  State  action  in  protec¬ 
tion  of  the  rights  of  its  own  citizens  could  readily  be  ob¬ 
tained.  There  is  grave  doubt  in  the  minds  of  many  whether 
State  governments  as  a  whole  are  not  more  readily  in¬ 
fluenced  by  large  private  interests  than  is  the  National 
Government.  We  could  mention  several  States  in  which 

9 

it  is  generally  understood  that  many  bills  have  to  receive 
the  assent  of  influential  railway  presidents  before  they  are 
permitted  to  become  law.  Influences  so  potent  as  these 


70 


CONSERVATION  OF 


may  be  exercised  in  favor  of  conservation  or  they  may  not; 
and  while  powerful  influences  are  constantly  at  work  on 
Congress,  we  have  faith  to  believe  that  their  authority  sel¬ 
dom  or  never  extends  so  far  as  we  have  just  intimated.  The 
interests  of  all  people,  irrespective  of  their  residence  in  any 
particular  State,  will  be  affected  by  the  conservation  policy 
carried  on  within  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States;  and 
long  previous  experience  in  this  country  with  State  legis¬ 
lation  indicates  that  where  general  interests  are  involved, 
uniformity  of  action  throughout  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  is  the  only  means  by  which  effective  action  can  be 
attained. 

Congress  has  been  cautious  and  properly  so  in  taking  im¬ 
portant  action  under  its  general  right  to  protect  the  public 
welfare,  but  it  looks  very  much  as  if,  in  the  matter  of  con¬ 
servation,  a  point  had  been  reached  when  such  action  would 
become  highly  desirable.  State  control,  if  prompt  and 
effective  is  perhaps  to  be  preferred » on  general  principles 
to  National  control,  since  the  general  theory  of  our  Govern¬ 
ment  is  based  on  the  preservation  to  the  fullest  practicable 
extent  of  local  rights.  Yet  in  cases  of  possible  or  probable 
conflict  between  local  rights  it  is  the  general  tendency  to 
harmonize  the  differences  through  Congressional  action,  for 
which  there  is  ample  though  somewhat  ill-defined  authority 
in  the  Constitution.  Certainly  in  the  important  issues  of 
conservation  that  are  now  under  discussion  there  are  so 
many  features  involving  interstate  rights  that  dependence 
solely  upon  State  action  would  appear  to  be  chiefly  effective 
in  promoting  litigation. 


Forestry  and  Irrigation.  14:  419-24.  August,  1908. 

Plea  for  Nationalization  of  our  Natural  Resources. 

H.  Riesenberg. 

F.  H.  Newell,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  United  States 
Reclamation  Service,  states,  “The  matter  of  the  develop¬ 
ment  erf  the  West  is  not  a  State  question.  We.  must  con¬ 
serve  forests  in  Wyoming  to  benefit  the  arid  plains  of  Idaho. 
In  western  Kansas  there  is  the  greatest  interest  in  irriga- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


7 1 


tion,  and  although  there  are  no  forests,  the  rivers  that 
come  into  Kansas,  as  the  Arkansas,  depend  for  the  con¬ 
tinuity  of  their  flow  on  the  proper  treatment  of  the  wood¬ 
lands  on  the  mountains  in  the  central  part  of  Colorado,” 
and  so  forth,  “ad  infinitum.” 

The  foregoing  is  sufficient  to  prove  to  the  unbiased 
mind  that  a  national  agency  is  absolutely  essential  to  carry 
on  the  work  of  conservation  in  this  country.  If  we  agree 
on  this,  the  question  naturally  arises,  what  national  agency 
is  better  qualified  to  take  up  and  carry  on  the  work  than 
the  National  Government. 

It  is  almost  certain,  judging  the  future  by  the  past, 
that  the  States  cannot,  and  individuals  and  corporations 
will  not,  adopt  a  uniform  plan  for  the  conservation  of  our 
natural  resources,  a  plan  that  will  work  the  greatest  good 
to  the  greatest  number.  The  States  cannot  be  expected  to 
do  the  essential  part  of  this  work;  it  involves  absolutely 
uniform  national  activity. 


Literary  Digest.  42:  932.  May  13,  1911. 

Federal  Conservation  Clinched. 

Conservationists  of  the  Roosevelt  and  Pinchot  stamp 
are  pictured  as  feeling  a  thrill  of  satisfaction  at  the  sight  of 
their  particular  brand  of  conservation  marked  with  the  in¬ 
dorsement  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  For,  as 
the  newspaper  editors  see  it,  the  court  of  last  resort  has 
now  forever  settled  the  question  of  Federal  vs.  State  con¬ 
servation  in  favor  of  the  National  Government.  As  summed 
up  by  the  Philadelphia  North  American,  this  unanimous 
decision  handed  down  at  Washington  last  week  means  that 
“the  Federal  Government,  without  consent  of  the  State 
affected,  may  set  aside  vast  areas  of  public  lands  as  a  forest 
reserve,  and  that  such  reserve  is  not  subject  to  the  State 
fencing  laws.”  Most  of  the  editors  express  a  hearty  ap¬ 
proval  of  this  outcome,  and  the  Omaha  Be e  even  discovers 
“an  element  of  singular  satisfaction”  in  the  fact  that  it  is 
Justice  Lamar  who  writes  the  opinions  in  the  two  cases  in¬ 
volved.  For,  says  The  Bee,  “Justice  Lamar  is  a  scion  of 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


72 


CONSERVATION  OF 


one  of  the  old  families  of  the  South,  in  whose  traditions 
the  issue  of  States’  rights  has  always  been  preeminent.” 

It  seems  that  a  certain  cattleman  in  Colorado,  and  cer¬ 
tain  sheepmen  in  California  had  made  free  to  pasture  their 
herds  and  flocks  on  forest  reserve  land  in  their  respective 
States,  without  making  any  effort  to  secure  permits  from 
the  proper  Federal  authorities.  The  plaintiff  in  the  Colo¬ 
rado  case  contended  that  the  lands  in  question  were  un¬ 
fenced,  and  that  under  the  State  law  damages  could  not  be 
collected  from  the  owners  of  cattle  trespassing  thereon. 
This  point  Justice  Lamar  answers  as  follows: 

Even  a  private  owner  should  be  entitled  to  protection  against 
wilful  trespasses,  and  statutes  providing  that  damages  done  by 
animals  can  not  be  recovered  unless  the  land  had  been  enclosed 
with  a  fence  of  the  size  and  material  required  do  not  give  per¬ 
mission  to  the  owner  of  cattle  to  use  his  neighbor’s  land  as  a 
pasture.  They  are  intended  to  condone  trespasses  by  straying 
cattle;  they  have  no  application  to  cases  where  they  are  driven 
upon  unfenced  land  in  order  that  they  may  feed  there. 

Fence  laws  do  not  authorize  wanton  and  wilful  trespasses 
nor  do  they  afford  immunity  to  those  who  in  disregard  of  prop¬ 
erty  rights  turn  loose  their  cattle  under  circumstances  showing 
that  they  were  intended  to  graze  upon  the  land  of  another. 
This  the  defendant  did  under  circumstances  equivalent  to  driv¬ 
ing  his  cattle  upon  the  forest  reserve. 

But  there  was  a  broader  question  involved,  and  the  de¬ 
fense  proceeded  “to  unmask  its  guns  and  attack  the  Forest 
Reserve  Faw  and  all  departmental  regulations  made  by 
authority  thereof.”  And,  as  the  Philadelphia  Record  notes 

further  in  its  review  of  the  case: 

To  this  attack  the  Attorney-General  of  Colorado  lent  the  sup¬ 
port  and  countenance  of  the  State.  It  was  asserted  that  no  pro¬ 
vision  of  the  Federal  Constitution  empowered  the  Government  to 
“conserve  the  national  resources”;  that  the  reservation  of  vast 
tracts  in  Colorado  was  a  denial  of  equality  with  the  older  States, 
which  had  been  allowed  to  exercise  dominion  over  all  the  terri¬ 
tory  within  their  boundaries. 

But  the  Supreme  Court  riddled  this  argument  by  pro¬ 
ceeding  upon  the  basic  principle  that  “the  nation  is  an 
owner  and  has  made  Congress  the  principal  agent  to  dis¬ 
pose  of  its  property.” 

Thus  the  highest  authority  of  the  land  has  at  last  dis¬ 
posed  of  that  “curious  notion  that  the  United  States  of 
America  own  lands  for  the  sake  of  giving  free  pasture  to 
any  cattle-owners  or  sheep-owners  who  happen  along,” 
remarks  the  Philadelphia  Record.  This  is  a  “sound  deci¬ 
sion.”  according  to  the  Brooklyn  Times,  and  it  “comes 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


73 


opportunely,”  adds  the  Pittsburg  Dispatch.  “Great  is  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,”  exclaims  the  New 
York  Press,  for  “out  of  a  volume  of  muddy  arguments 
bewildering  to  the  average  layman,  and  arousing  false  hopes 
in  the  minds  of  misguided  litigants,  it  distills  the  simple 

truth  and  then  enforces  what  every  one  recognizes  as 
justice,  exhibiting  the  result  in  words  that  a  child  who  runs 
may  read.”  The  New  York  Evening  Post  finds  “solid  satis¬ 
faction”  in  the  Court’s  dictum.  And  the  Chicago  Inter 
Ocean,  a  paper  which  has  consistently  opposed  Mr.  Roose¬ 

velt  and  the  “Roosevelt  policies,”  has  no  fault  to  find.  The 
Chicago  paper  has  a  word  to  say,  however,  about  the  men 
whose  acts  have  made  necessary  the  new  attitude  now  up¬ 
held  by  the  Supreme  Court: 

Many  fortunes  have  been  built  up  in  our  trans-Missouri  re¬ 
gions  by  mere  occupation  of  the  public  lands  for  grazing.  The 
men  who  did  this  in  the  earlier  days,  before  population  began 
to  press  upon  natural  resources,  are  not  to  be  vilified  as  “graft¬ 
ers”  because  they  did  it,  as  is  the  habit  of  our  over-zealous 

“conservationists.”  The  lands  lay  idle  and  they  put  them  to  uses 

which  increased  the  nation’s  wealth  as  well  as  their  own.  They 
employed  labor  and  cleared  the  way  into  the  wilderness  for  those 
who  were  to  come  after  them.  .  .  . 

The  trouble  with  many  trans-Missouri  and  Rocky  Mountain 
communities  is  that  they  have  been  slow  to  see  that  what  could 
be  permitted  forty,  thirty,  and  even  twenty  years  ago  can  not 
be  safely  permitted  now.  .  .  . 

The  Supreme  Court’s  clear-cut  definition  of  the  law  should 
show  to  these  communities  their  error  and  move  them  to  closer 
study  how  natural  resources  may  be  used  without  abuse. 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

Pages  82-93.  Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Take  the  question  of  drainage,  which  is  almost  as  im¬ 
portant  to  the  eastern  States  as  irrigation  is  in  the  western 
States:  Where  the  drainage  of  swamp  and  overflow  lands 
in  a  given  area  is  wholly  within  the  lines  of  a  particular 
State,  it  may  be  well,  at  least  at  present,  to  leave  the 
handling  of  it  to  the  State  or  to  private  action;  but  where 
such,  a  drainage  area  is  included  in  two  or  more  States,  the 
only  wise  course  is  to  have  the  Federal  Government  act; 
the  land  should  be  deeded  from  the  States  back  to  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government,  and  it  then  should  take  whatever  action 


74 


CONSERVATION  OF 


I 


is  necessary.  Much  of  this  work  must  be  done  by  the 
Nation,  in  any  case,  as  an  integral  part  of  inland  waterway 
development,  and  it  affords  a  most  promising  field  for  co¬ 
operation  between  the  States  and  the  Nation. 

We,  the  people  of  the  East,  our  State  Governors — I  have 
been  a  Governor  of  an  eastern  State  myself — showed  that 
the  States  in  the  East  couldn’t  do  the  work  as  well  as  the 
National  Government  and  we  are  now  getting  the  National 
Government  to  take,  at  large  cost  to  itself,  these  lands  and 
do  the  work  the  public  good  requires.  When  we  are  now 
doing  that  in  the  East,  it  seems  to  me  the  wildest  folly  to 
ask  us  to  start  in  the  West  to  repeat  the  same  blunders  that 
are  now  being  remedied.  My  language  shall  at  least  be  free 
from  ambiguity. 

If  any  proof  were  needed  that  forest  protection  is  a 
National  duty,  the  recent  destruction  of  forests  in  the  Rocky 
Mountains  by  fire  would  supply  it.  Even  with  the  aid  of 
the  Army  added  to  that  of  the  Forest  Service,  the  loss  has 
been  severe.  Without  either  it  would  have  been  vastly 
greater.  But  the  Forest  Service  does  more  than  protect  the 
National  forests  against  fire.  It  makes  them  practically 
and  increasingly  useful  as  well.  During  the  last  year  for 
which  I  have  figures  the  National  forests  were  used  by 
22,000  cattlemen  with  their  herds,  5,000  sheepmen  with  their 
flocks,  5,000  timbermen  with  their  crews,  and  45,000  miners. 
And  yet  people  will  tell  you  they  have  been  shut  up  from 
popular  use!  More  than  5,000  persons  usecf  them  for  other 
special  industries.  Nearly  34,000  settlers  had  the  free  use  of 
water.  The  total  resident  population  of  the  National  forests 
is  about  a  quarter  of  a  million,  which  is  larger  than  the 
population  of  some  of  our  States.  More  than  700,000  acres 
of  agricultural  land  have  been  patented  or  listed  for  patent 
v,  ithin  the  forests,  and  the  reports  of  the  forest  officers  show 
that  more  than  400,000  people  a  year  use  the  forests  for 
recreation,  camping,  hunting,  fishing  and  similar  purposes. 
All  this  is  done,  of  course,  without  injury  to  the  timber, 
which  has  a  value  of  at  least  a  thousand  million  dollars. 
Moreover,  the  National  forests  protect  the  water  supply  of 
a  thousand  cities  and  towns,  about  800  irrigation  projects, 
and  more  than  300  power  projects,  not  counting  the  use 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


75 


of  water  for  these  and  other  purposes  by  individual  settlers. 
I  think  that  hereafter  we  may  safely  disregard  any  state¬ 
ments  that  the  National  forests  are  withdrawn  from  settle¬ 
ment  and  usefulness.  One  of  the  most  important  Conserva¬ 
tion  questions  of  the  moment  relates  to  the  control  of  water¬ 
power  monopoly  in  the  public  interest.  There  is  apparent  to 
the  judicious  observer  a  distinct  tendency  on  the  part  of 
our  opponents  to  cloud  the  issue  by  raising  the  question  of 
State  as  against  Federal  jurisdiction.  We  are  ready  to  meet 
this  issue  if  it  is  forced  upon  us,  but  there  is  no  hope  for  the 
plain  people  in  such  conflicts  of  jurisdiction.  The  essential 
question  is  not  one  of  hair-splitting  legal  technicalities.  It 
is  not  really  a  question  of  State  against  Nation,  it  is  really 
a  question  of  the  special  corporate  interests  against  the 
popular  interests  of  the  people.  If  it  were  not  for  those 
special  corporate  interests,  you  never  would  have  heard 
the  question  of  State  against  Nation  raised.  The  real  ques¬ 
tion  is  simply  this,  Who  can  best  regulate  the  special  inter¬ 
ests  for  the  country’s  good?  Most  of  the  great  corpora¬ 
tions,  and  almost  all  of  those  that  can  legitimately  be  called 
the  great  predatory  corporations,  have  interstate  affiliations; 
therefore  they  are  out  of  reach  of  effective  State  control, 
and  fall  of  necessity  within  the  Federal  jurisdiction.  One 
of  the  prime  objects  of  those  among  them  that  are  grasping 
and  greedy  is  to  avoid  any  effective  control  either  by  State 
or  Nation;  and  they  advocate  at  this  time  State  control 
chiefly  because  they  believe  it  to  be  the  least  effective.  If 
it  grew  effective,  many  of  those  now  defending  it  would 
themselves  turn  around  and  declare  against  State  control, 
and  plead  in  the  courts  that  such  control  was  unconstitu¬ 
tional. 

In  the  great  fight  of  the  people  to  drive  the  special  inter¬ 
ests  from  the  domination  of  the  Government,  the  Nation 
is  stronger,  and  its  jurisdiction  is  more  effective  than  that 
of  any  State.  I  want  to  say  another  thing,  which  the 
representatives  of  those  corporations  do  not  at  the  moment 
belieye,  but  which  I  am  sure  that  in  the  end  they  will  find 
out;  because  of  its  strength,  because  of  the  fact  that  the 
Federal  Government  is  better  able  to  exact  justice  from 
them,  I  also  believe  it  is  less  apt,  in  some  sudden  gust  >f 


/6 


CONSERVATION  OF 


popular  passion,  to  do  injustice  to  them.  Now,  I  want 
you  to  understand  my  position — I  do  not  think  you  can 
misunderstand  it.  I  will  do  my  utmost  to  secure  the  rights 
of  every  corporation.  If  a  corporation  is  improperly  at¬ 
tacked,  I  will  stand  up  for  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability;  I’d 
stand  up  for  it  even  though  I  was  sure  that  the  bulk  of  the 
people  were  misguided  enough  at  the  moment  to  take  the 
wrong  side  and  be  against  it.  I  should  fight  to  see  that  the 
people,  through  the  National  Government,  did  full  justice 
to  the  corporations;  but  I  don’t  want  the  National  Govern¬ 
ment  to  depend  only  upon  their  good  will  to  get  justice 
for  the  people.  Now,  most  of  the  great  corporations  are 
in  large  part  financed  and  owned  in  the  Atlantic  States, 
and  it’s  a  rather  comical  fact  that  many  of  the  chief  and 
most  zealous  upholders'  of  States’  rights  in  the  present 
controversy  are  big  business  men  who  live  in  other  States. 
The  most  effective  weapon  is  Federal  laws  and  the  Federal 
Executive.  That  is  why  I  so  strongly  oppose  the  demand 
to  turn  these  matters  over  to  the  States.  It  is  fundamentally 
a  demand  against  the  interest  of  the  plain  people,  of  the 
people  of  small  means,  against  the  interest  of  our  children 
and  our  children’s  children;  and  it  is  primarily  in  the  inter¬ 
est  of  the  great  corporations  which  wish  to  escape  effective 
Government  control. 

And  I  ask  you  to  consider  two  more  things  in  this  con¬ 
nection:  Waters  run;  they  don’t  stay  in  one  State.  That 
fact  seems  elementary,  but  it  tends  to  be  forgotten.  I 
have  just  come  from  Kansas.  Practically  all  the  water 
in  Kansas  runs  into  Kansas  from  another  State,  and  out 
of  it  into  other  States.  You  can’t  have  effective  control  of 
a  watershed  unless  the  same  power  controls  all  the  water¬ 
sheds,  as  the  water  runs  not  merely  out  one  State  into 
another  but  out  of  one  country  into  another.  One  of  the 
great  irrigation  projects  of  Montana  has  been  delayed  be¬ 
cause  the  waters  that  make  the  Milk  river  rise  in  Montana, 
flow  north  into  Canada,  and  then  come  back  into  Montana. 
You  can’t  settle  that  matter  excepting  through  the  National 
Government;  the  State  can’t  settle  it.  So  much  for  what 
we  see  here.  Now,  take  the  experience  of  other  Nations — 
of  the  little  Republic  of  Switzerland.  It  actually  tried  what 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


77 


some  of  our  people  ask  to  try;  it  actually  tried  the  experi¬ 
ment  of  letting  each  Canton  handle  its  own  waters,  and  a 
conflict  of  jurisdiction  arose,  and  the  squabbling  and  the 
injustices  became  such  that  about  nine  years  ago  the  Na¬ 
tional  Government  of  Switzerland  had  to  assume  complete 
control  of  all  the  waters  of  Switzerland,  on  the  explicit 
ground  that  all  of  the  waters  belonged  to  all  the  citizens 
of  the  Swiss  nation.  Now,  I  am  not  asking  that  we  go 
ahead  recklessly;  I  am  only  asking  that  we  do  not  go  back¬ 
ward  where  other  countries  have  gone  ahead. 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

Pages  320-1.  William  Douglas  Johns. 

I  wish  to  tell  the  Delegates  here,  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  the  necessity  of  Federal  control,  how  the  water¬ 
power  sites  of  the  State  of  Washington — the  greatest  of 
them — have  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  State  within  a 
few  months,  under  the  administration  of  Land  Commissioner 
Ross,  who  has  made  himself  so  prominent  here  this  evening. 
Two  corporations  have  filed  on  the  lower  waters  of  the 
mighty  Columbia,  a  railroad  and  water  corporation  with 
steamboats  plying  100  miles  above  and  carrying  freight  and 
passengers,  and  an  irrigation  corporation  below,  using  half 
of  the  waters  of  Columbia  River,  and  all  the  State  of  Wash¬ 
ington  got  was  filing  fees;  and  Governor  Hay  wants  us  to 
give  the  balance  to  him  in  the  same  way — the  other  half  of 
those  great  waters  of  the  mighty  Columbia.  The  lands 
secured  by  the  railroad  corporation  within  a  few  months 
on  the  shore — lands  worth  millions  of  dollars — were  sold 
by  Governor  Hay  and  Land  Commissioner  Ross  for  $10,000, 
and  Governor  Hay  wants  us  to  turn  over  more  to  him  for  the 
same  purpose.  The  waters  of  Chelan  River  in  the  Cascades 
James  J.  Hill  secured  (125,000  horsepower)  by  paying  filing 
fees  to  the  State.  No  wonder,  in  his  speech,  he  favored 
State  control! 

A  few  days  before  I  left  Washington  a  dispatch  came 
from  Port  Townsend  to  the  Seattle  papers — making  a  glori- 


78 


CONSERVATION  OF 


ous  spread — saying  that  the  water-power  company,  capital¬ 
ized  at  a  million  or  two,  was  going  to  put  in  a  6,000  horse¬ 
power  plant  to  supply  Port  Townsend  and  the  neighboring 
country — and  then  boasted  of  the  country  to  show  what  a 
good  thing  it  was  to  invest  in.  They  said  the  company 
had  secured  every  water-power  site  on  the  river,  right  up 
to  its  eternal  glaciers,  and  that  they  had  been  twenty  years 
in  securing  those  sites.  Were  they  doing  it  for  develop¬ 
ment?  Never!  They  were  going  to  take  one  lower  fall 
and  develop  it,  and  sell  the  power  at  a  high  price.  They 
had  secured  all  the  other  sites  along  that  river — and  for  what 
purpose?  To  prevent  competition  until  the  country  grew  up 
by  paying  taxes  simply,  holding  a  water-power  site  that 
amounted  to  nothing  until  the  people  were  prepared  to  pay 
an  immense  revenue  to  them.  So  much  for  their  plea  of 
Governor  Hay  that  he  wanted  the  State  developed.  The 
Olympia  National  Forest,  reserved  by  President  Cleveland, 
was  opened  in  response  to  a  similar  complaint  as  that  made 
by  Governor  Hay,  “You  are  driving  settlers  to  British  Co¬ 
lumbia.”  It  contains  some  of  the  richest  timber  lands  in 
the  State  of  Washington  and  on  the  Pacific  coast.  What 
was  done  with  it?  Par.  of  it  was  covered  by  scrip,  a  few 
quarters  were  taken  by  war  settlers,  the  balance  by  specu¬ 
lators.  They  sold  at  from  $600  to  $800  per  quarter,  a  few 
holding  on  until  within  the  last  few  years;  and  the  result 
was  that  it  has  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  corporations. 
Since  the  Milwaukee  built  out  there,  they  burned  up  much 
of  it;  and  today  you  can  go  into  great  tracts  of  that  land 
(I  have  been  through  it)  and  you  would  never  know  that  a 
human  foot  had  stepped  there — it  is  as  wild  as  it  was 
before  Vancouver  sailed  along  the  coast  on  his  voyage  of 
discovery.  If  the  National  Forests  of  the  State  of  Washing¬ 
ton  were  turned  over  by  the  United  States  Government  to 
the  State  of  Washington  and  its  officials,  and  the  tender 
mercies  of  Land  Commissioner  Ross,  they  probably  would 
go  just  exactly  as  the  Olympia  Forest  went — into  the  hands 
of  speculators,  not  to  be  settled  up,  not  to  bring  wealth 
and  people  and  glory  to  the  State,  but  to  be  held  until  tim¬ 
ber  is  valuable,  to  be  kept  in  primeval  wilderness. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


79 


Outlook..  92:  910.  August  21,  1909. 

Forests  and  Water  Powers:  Oregon. 

Many  of  our  rivers  are  inter-State.  Hence  no  one  State’s 
control  will  be  sufficient  even  to  control  its  own  waters. 
The  next  step  is  to  secure  uniformity  in  the  laws  of  the 
different  States.  The  Oregon  Legislature’s  laws  might  be 
taken  as  examples  in  other  States.  But  conditions  are  differ¬ 
ent  in  different  States.  Even  if  they  were  alike,  it  would 
be  doubtful,  in  our  opinion,  whether  uniformity  of  State 
legislation  could  be  secured  in  this  domain  more  than  in 
any  other.  Hence  the  conservation  and  wise  use  of  water 
resources  will,  we  believe,  never  be  accomplished  until  the 
whole  country  submits  to  a  Federal  administrative  system. 
Some  kind  of  Federal  commission  must  be  created  with 
power  to  determine,  enforce,  and  protect  inter-State  rights. 
For  instance,  it  ought  to  be  possible  either  for  the  Govern¬ 
ment’s  Reclamation  Service  or  for  private  capital  to  store 
the  flood  waters  in  Colorado  for  use  in  California  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Colorado  River.  Surely  there  can  be  no  co¬ 
ordination  of  all  the  advantages  of  water  on  inter-State 
streams  until  intelligent  Federal  supervision  is  provided. 


Outlook.  94:  975-6.  April  30,  1910. 

Save  the  Nation’s  Property. 

Millions  of  acres  of  swamp  and  overflowed  lands  once 
belonged  to  the  Nation,  but  a  generation  ago  they  were 
handed  over  to  the  States,  and  are  now  in  the  hands  of  a 
few  big  interests.  Thousands  of  acres  of  grazing  lands 
are  now  virtually  useless  to  the  settlers,  because  swamp 
lands  which  furnish  the  only  water  for  cattle  on  these  graz¬ 
ing  lands  are  held  in  private  ownership.  The  history  of 
swamp  lands  must  not  be  repeated  with  water  power  sites. 

The  Nation  can  afford  much  better  than  any  State  to 
carry  out  a  broad  and  statesmanlike  water  power  policy,  and 
is  much  stronger  than  any  State  as  protector  of  the  con¬ 
sumer. 

It  is  because  the  Nation  is  strong  that  special  interests 


8o 


CONSERVATION  OF 


are  seeking  to  have  the  ownership  of  water  power  sites 
transferred  to  the  States.  A  special  interest  can  control  a 
State  Legislature  much  more  easily  than  it  can  control 
Congress.  Moreover,  it  can  disregard  the  protest  of  the 
whole  Nation  if  the  State  has  sole  control;  but  if  the  Nation 
has  sole  control,  it  will  have  to  be  subject  to  the  Nation’s 
scrutiny. 

In  spite  of  the  vigorous  campaign  on  the  part  of  inter¬ 
ested  concerns  and  individuals,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  can,  if  they  will,  retain  these  water  power  sites  in 
the  ownership  of  the  Federal  Government. 


Outlook.  95:  57-9.  May  14,  1910. 

National  Conservation. 

National  conservation  means  two  principles:  First,  that 
the  National  domain  belongs  to  the,  people  and  is  to  be  ad¬ 
ministered  for  their  benefit;  and,  second,  that  there  is  power 
in  the  National  Government  under  our  Constitution  so  to 
control  that  administration  as  to  make  it  of  benefit  to  the 
people. 

To  this  second  policy  of  national  conservation  there 
are  numerous  opponents.  It  is  opposed — 

By  the  special  interests:  the  men  who  have  the  energy 
and  enterprise,  or  think  they  have  the  energy  and  enterprise, 
to  get  possession  of  a  considerable  share  of  the  National 
domain  and  make  in  the  future  fortunes  out  of  it  as  fortunes 
have  been  made  in  the  past. 

By  the  traditionalists:  the  men  who  fear  any  departure 
from  the  creeds,  the  policies,  and  the  methods  of  the  past; 
who  believe  in  the  motto,  Let  well  enough  alone,  and  pre¬ 
fer  to  suffer  the  ills  of  the  present  than  to  fly  to  ills  they 
cannot  clearly  foresee  and  prevent. 

By  the  individualists:  the  men  who  do  not  believe  that 
the  public  domain  belongs  to  the  public;  who  believe  that 
the  sole  function  of  government  is  to  preserve  order  while 
mankind  engages  in  a  free  competitive  struggle  for  the 
world’s  wealth,  which  should  be  distributed  upon  the  princi¬ 
ple,  First  come,  first  served. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


81 


By  the  political  skeptics:  the  men  who  do  not  believe 
in  the  competence  of  the  people  to  protect  their  interests; 
who  believe  that  if  Government  undertakes  to  regulate  the 
administration  of  the  public  domain  in  the  public  interest, 
enterprise  will  be  stifled,  industry  paralyzed,  corruption  and 
waste  increased. 

By  the  anti-Federalists :  the  men  who  do  not  believe  that 
our  Federal  Government  has,  under  the  Constitution,  the 
power  to  do  this  work  of  regulation,  or  is  by  its  nature 
fitted  to  undertake  it,  and  who  would  therefore  leave  the 
public  domain  either  to  the  unregulated  control  of  private 
enterprises  or  to  regulation  by  the  States. 

We  do  not  impugn  the  motives  of  any  of  these  men.  We 
do  not  even  discuss  the  wisdom  and  weight  of  their  objec¬ 
tions.  We  only  affirm  that  they  are  not  national  conserva¬ 
tionists.  No  man  believes  in  national  conservation  unless 
he  believes  that  the  National  domain  belongs  to  the  Nation, 
and  that  from  this  time  forth  the  Nation  should  see  that  it 
is  administered  under  the  control  of  the  Nation  and  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Nation. 


Outlook.  95:  94-5.  May  21,  1910. 

Water  Power:  National  versus  State  Control. 

y 

It  would  be  useful  to  have  the  control  of  the  land  and 
the  water  in  one  sovereign,  but  since  that  one  sovereign 
cannot  be  the  Nation  (for  the  States  cannot  be  expected 
to  give  up  their  control  of  the  water)  it  would  be  much 
better  to  leave  the  control  divided  as  it  is  now.  If  the 
Nation  allows  the  ownership  of  the  land  to  pass  into  other 
hands,  it  cannot  regain  it;  if  the  Nation  retains  the  owner¬ 
ship,  it  can  develop  a  consistent,  uniform,  and  wise  policy 
for  the  development  of  the  water  power.  The  land  now 
belongs  to  the  whole  American  people,  and  there  is  no  rea¬ 
son  'syhy  it  should  be  given  over  to  a  part  of  the  people. 
Familiarity  with  local  conditions  and  sensitiveness  to  local 
necessities  too  often  operate  to  the  neglecting  of  broad 
National  conditions  and  the  necessities  of  the  whole  people. 


8  2 


CONSERVATION  OF 


Provisions  that  control  which  has  once  been  given  up  shall 
be  reasserted,  if  certain  conditions  are  not  complied  with, 
are  notoriously  difficult  of  enforcement.  It  is  highly  im¬ 
probable  that  control  once  given  up  by  the  Nation  could 
be,  to  any  large  extent,  regained,  even  under  the  provisions 
of  the  Smoot  bill.  The  conservation  of  those  natural  re¬ 
sources  which  still  remain  in  the  ownership  of  the  Nation  is 
one  of  the  most  important  duties  of  the  Federal  Government 
as  trustee  for  the  American  people.  The  way  to  secure  that 
conservation  is  not  by  attempting  to  shift  that  duty  to  the 
States,  but  by  adopting  a  broad  and  wise  policy  in  which 
the  public  interest  shall  be  paramount. 


Outlook.  98:  131-2.  May  27,  1911. 

A  Victory  for  Conservation. 

T  » 

The  conservation  policy  as  established  under  the  Roose¬ 
velt  Administration  and  administered  by  Mr.  Garfield  in  the 
Interior  Department  and  Mr.  Pinchot  in  the  Forest  Service 
was,  of  course,  the  object  of  attack  by  those  who  found 
that  it  interfered  with  their  profits  or  their  privileges.  There 
were  many  grounds  on  which  this  attack  was  made.  Of 
these  at  least  two  were  of  great  importance.  One  of  these 
was  that  the  Federal  Government,  in  its  carrying  out  of  its 
conservation  policy,  was  invading  the  Constitutional  rights 
of  the  States.  The  other  was  that  the  administrative  officers 
of  the  Government,  in  making  and  enforcing  Conservation 
regulations,  were  usurping  the  prerogatives  of  the  legislative 
branch.  Both  these  objections  have  received  a  heavy  and, 
we  should  conclude,  a  mortal  blow  from  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.  In  one  case  the  States’  rights  refuge 
is  closed  to  the  enemies  of  conservation.  This  is  a  case 
in  which  Fred  Light  was  enjoined  from  turning  out  his 
cattle  so  that  they  should  graze  on  the  Holy  Cross  Forest 
Reserve.  The  cattleman  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court 
on  the  ground  that  the  public  lands  were  held  in  trust  for 
the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  that  the  proclamation 
that  created  the  Forest  Reserve  without  the  consent  of  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


83 


State  was  in  violation  of  this  trust;  and  that  the  United 
States  did  not  observe  the  Colorado  statute  requiring  an 
owner,  if  he  is  to  be  sustained  in  asking  damages  for  in¬ 
jury  by  straying  animals,  to  fence  his  property.  The  Su¬ 
preme  Court  decided  that  this  cattleman  had  no  ground 
of  complaint  against  the  injunction.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
Court,  delivered  by  Justice  Lamar,  “the  United  States  can 
prohibit  absolutely  or  fix  the  terms  on  which  its  property 
may  be  used.  As  it  can  withhold  or  reserve  the  land,  it 
can  do  so  indefinitely.”  As  for  the  fact  that  the  public  lands 
are  held  in  trust  for  the  people,  the  Court  declares  that  “it 
is  not  for  the  courts  to  say  how  that  trust  shall  be  ad¬ 
ministered.  That  is  for  Congress  to  determine.”  The  Court 
declined  to  enter  into  the  question  how  far  the  United  States 
would  be  required  to  fence  its  property  according  to  State 
law,  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  “fence  laws  do  not  author¬ 
ize  wanton  and  willful  trespass,”  and  if  is  willful  trespass 
that  the  cattle-owner  wishes  to  indulge  in.  The  other  ob¬ 
jection  was  disposed  of  in  a  similarly  summary  manner. 
This  objection  was  set  forth  in  two  cases  (that  of  Grimaud 
and  Carajous  and  that  of  Inda),  the  two  being  considered 
as  one.  In  this  case  the  defendants  were  charged  with  driv¬ 
ing  and  grazing  sheep  on  a  reserve  without  a  permit,  con¬ 
trary  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Secretary  of  Agri¬ 
culture.  After  indictment  these  men  demurred  on  the 
ground  that  the  law  which  made  it  an  offense  to  violate  the 
rules  of  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  was  an  attempt  by 
Congress  to  delegate  its  power  to  an  administrative  officer. 
The  Court  says  that  Congress  cannot  delegate  legislative 
power,  but  that  there  are  certain  powers  which  it  can  either 
exercise  or  delegate,  and  that  when  it  does  delegate  these 
powers  it  does  not  change  their  character  from  administra¬ 
tive  to  legislative  by  making  their  violations  punishable 
as  a  public  offense.  In  this  case  the  Supreme  Court  reversed, 
in  the  other  case  it  sustained,  the  lower  court;  in  both 
cases  it  upholds  as  constitutional  the  policy  of  conservation. 
It  is  hard  to  see  how  in  the  light  of  these  two  decisions  the 
authority  of  the  Federal  Government  over  water  power  in 
the  National  domain  can  be  questioned. 


84 


CONSERVATION  OF 


Outlook.  102:  935-44.  December  28,  1912. 

Shall  the  States  Own  the  Forests?  Henry  S.  Graves. 

During  the  last  three  years  the  proposal  to  turn  over 
the  national  forests  to  the  States  has  been  urged  with  in¬ 
creasing  insistence.  It  has  been  advocated  at  frequent  gath¬ 
erings  in  the  West,  by  a  portion  of  the  press,  and  by  various 
members  of  Congress.  Legislative  measures  proposing  such 
a  transfer  have  been  framed.  Debate  on  one  of  these  meas¬ 
ures  clearly  showed  an  astonishing  amount  of  support  to  the 
idea  that  transfer  to  the  States  would  be  the  ultimate  dis¬ 
position  of  the  remaining  public  lands,  the  national  forests 
included. 

Whether  the  State  or  Nation  should  own  and  administer 
these  public  resources  is  a  question  thus  definitely  presented 
to  the  American  people. 

The  national  forests  have  been  repeatedly  charged  with 
blocking  the  development  of  the  West.  Nothing  could  be 
further  from  the  facts.  Lands  chiefly  valuable  for  agriculture 
are  available  for  settlement.  Approximately  1,250,000  acres 
of  such  lands  have  been  classified  and  listed  for  entry  by  the 
Forest  Service,  to  the  benefit  of  12,000  settlers.  Prospecting 
and  bona-fide  mining  on  the  national  forests  are  unrestricted. 
Sales  of  mature  timber  are  encouraged  by  every  possible 
means  consistent  with  businesslike  administration.  Over 
fifty-six  hundred  timber  sales  are  made  yearly,  ninety-five 
per  cent  of  them  of  small  amounts  for  local  use.  Free  tim¬ 
ber  is  granted  annually  to  over  forty  thousand  settlers  and 
prospectors  for  developing  homes  or  mines.  Water  power 
development  is  encouraged  as  far  as  practicable  under  the 
present  inadequate  laws.  Some  two  hundred  power  com¬ 
panies  are  now  using  or  developing  sites  within  the  national 
forests.  The  only  restrictions  imposed  upon  this  widespread 
use  of  the  national  forests  are  those  required  to  maintain  the 
permanency  and  value  of  the  resources  and  to  prevent 
monopoly. 

The  national  forests  are  the  most  significant  and  con¬ 
crete  expression  of  the  principle  of  conservation.  That  prin¬ 
ciple  has  been  very  commonly  misrepresented  as  a  policy 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


85 


of  present  non-use  for  the  sake  of  future  generations.  Its 
true  purpose  is  twofold — to  prevent  monopoly  of  public 
resources,  and  to  secure  their  greatest  use,  both  present 
and  future,  by  scientific  development.  The  stewardship  of 
the  Forest  Service  seeks,  as  to  the  national  forests,  first, 
use  of  present  resources;  second,  permanency  of  such  re¬ 
sources;  and,  third,  greater  and  more  valuable  resources  for 
the  future. 

The  States  have  many  legitimate  interests  in  the  national 
forests.  The  administration  of  the  national  forests  recog¬ 
nizes  fully  all  of  these  interests.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
greatest  direct  benefits  of  public  control  are  received  by  the 
communities  nearest  to  them.  The  Forest  Service  is  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  settlement  of  lands  in  the  forests  chiefly 
valuable  for  agriculture.  The  timber  needs  of  local  resi¬ 
dents,  communities,  and  industries  are  amply  provided  for 
by  free  use  privileges  and  local  sales.  No  timber  is  sold 
for  shipment  to  the  general  markets  of  the  country  unless 
there  is  more  than  enough  to  supply  both  present  and  future 
local  needs.  A  similar  policy  governs  the  distribution  of 
grazing  privileges  and  the  use  of  forest  lands  for  water  de¬ 
velopment.  Charges  for  any  of  these  resources  are  made 
only  when  the  use  is  distinctly  commercial  in  character. 

As  rapidly  as  it  can  the  Forest  Service  is  opening  up  the 
inaccessible  mountainous  regions  which  make  up  the  bulk 
of  the  national  forests.  Many  settlements  have  been  helped 
to  secure  an  outlet  to  town,  railway,  or  market  by  trails, 
roads,  bridges,  and  ferries  built  by  the  Forest  Service.  Much 
of  this  work  has  been  done  in  co-operation  with  counties  or 
communities  of  settlers.  The  appropriation  act  this  year 
made  available  ten  per  cent  of  the  gross  receipts  from  the 
national  forests  for  building  roads  and  trails  needed  for  the 
development  of  the  country.  This  is  aside  from  the  regular 
appropriation  for  permanent  improvements  needed  primarily 
for  the  protection  and  administration  of  the  forests.  Under 
the  new  clause,  $200,000  is  available  for  the  current  year. 

The  Forest  Service  recognized  at  the  start  that  its  local 
personnel  must  not  only  be  familiar  with  the  regions  in 
which  they  worked,  but  must  also  be  in  sympathy  with  the 
problems  and  interests  of  the  people.  An  early  provision 


86 


CONSERVATION  OF 


of  law  required  the  selection  of  supervisors  for  the  re¬ 
spective  forests  from  residents  of  the  States  concerned  as 
far  as  practicable.  This  has  been  scrupulously  followed. 
Furthermore,  the  regulations  governing  the  national  forests 
provide  for  the  adaptation  of  administrative  measures  to  the 
varying  needs  in  different  localities. 

Loss  of  local  taxes  to  State  and  county  has  been  met  by 
legislation  giving  the  county  road  and  school  funds  twenty- 
five  per  cent  of  the  national  forest  gross  receipts.  This  is 
entirely  distinct  from  the  ten  per  cent  already  mentioned. 
On  the  more  inaccessible  and  undeveloped  forests  the  returns 
to  the  State  under  this  provision  are  not  yet  great.  From 
other  forests  the  amounts  now  received  by  the  counties 
form  no  inconsiderable  part  of  their  revenue.  During  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1911,  the  Bitter  Root  National  Forest, 
Montana,  paid  $15,000  into  the  county  treasury;  the  Deer 
Lodge  National  Forest,  in  the  same  State,  $19,400;  and  the 
Coconino  National  Forest,  Arizona’,  $12,800.  The  revenue 
derived  from  the  Deer  Lodge  by  Montana  is  greater  than 
if  the  entire  area  were  taxable  and  assessed  as  timberland 
of  the  first  class  under  the  Montana  laws — a  class  which, 
in  fact,  would  include  less  than  a  third  of  the  area.  The 
returns  in  these  instances  indicate  what  is  approaching  on 
all  of  the  forests  as  the  demand  for  their  resources  becomes 
more  general. 

Of  still  greater  moment  to  the  national  forest  communi¬ 
ties,  however,  is  the  development  and  maintenance  of  stable 
industries.  The  national  forests  are  capable  of  producing 
indefinitely  over  six  billion  feet  of  timber  each  year.  This 
may  be  increased  to  eight  or  ten  billion.  Every  thousand 
feet  of  such  timber  which  is  cut  pays  to  the  community 
at  least  $8  in  wages  and  $2  or  more  for  merchandise. 
When  market  conditions  make  it  possible  to  utilize  the  full 
annual  yield  of  these  areas,  the  industries  which  it  will 
support  will  distribute  at  least  sixty  million  dollars  every 
year  for  labor  and  supplies  in  the  communities  in  and  near 
the  national  forests.  Furthermore,  this  industrial  develop¬ 
ment  will  be  permanent. 

Oftentimes  local  communities  are  practically  the  sole 
beneficiaries  of  this  policy.  The  sparsely  timbered  forests 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


87 


of  southern  California  are  maintained  almost  exclusively 
for  the  protection  of  streams  used  for  local  irrigation  and 
power  development.  This  protection  is  known  to  the  people 
of  that  region  to  be  vital  to  the  maintenance  of  the  water 
upon  which  practically  their  entire  agriculture  and  horti¬ 
culture  depend.  Many  areas  are  held  in  the  national  forests, 
at  the  request  of  local  communities,  primarily  to  protect  mu¬ 
nicipal  water  supplies.  On  some  of  them  the  sparse  forest 
growth  is  being  extended  by  artificial  planting.  The  broad 
principle  of  public  control  of  resources  to  accomplish  ob¬ 
jects  which  could  not  be  accomplished  under  private  control 
is  being  applied. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  all  of  the  legitimate  needs 
of  the  western  communities  are  provided  for,  and  that  the 
transfer  of  ownership  of  the  forests  from  the  Government 
to  the  several  States  cannot  be  justified  on  the  ground 
of  discrimination  against  the  latter  or  injury  to  their  in¬ 
terests. 

The  various  grants  of  public  land  to  the  States  total 
nearly  185,000,000  acres.  The  largest  grants  have  been  made 
to  promote  education,  as  vital  to  the  maintenance  of  demo¬ 
cratic  government  and  free  institutions.  Other  grants  have 
been  made  for  public  buildings  and  penitentiaries,  still  others 
to  promote  military  training  and  the  construction  of  post 
roads.  The  eleven  States  west  of  the  one  hundredth  me¬ 
ridian,  which  contain  most  of  the  national  forests,  have  re¬ 
ceived  nearly  77,000,000  acres.  The  average  grant  to  the 
national  forest  States  is  therefore  6,985,000  acres,  against 
2,920,000  acres  to  each  of  the  other  States.  The  western¬ 
most  States  have  received  sixty  per  cent  of  the  land  granted 
for  education,  maintenance  of  public  institutions,  and  other 
special  purposes,  and  all  of  the  land  granted  under  the 
Carey  Act  for  the  promotion  of  irrigation.  Aside  from  the 
swamp  land  grants,  which  benefited  particularly  the  southern 
States,  the  national  forest  States  have  received,  State  for 
State,  nearly  six  times  as  much  public  land  as  their  eastern 
sisters. 

Without  begrudging  this  liberal  use  of  public  resources  to 
aid  the  development  of  the  western  States,  it  must  be  empha¬ 
sized  that  the  aim  of  every  grant  has  been  to  promote  the 


88 


CONSERVATION  OF 


public  welfare,  judged  not  only  from  a  local  but  also  from  a 
National  standpoint.  The  transfer  of  the  national  forests 
would  be  a  further  gift  of  187,000,000  acres,  chiefly  to  the 
same  States. 

The  protection,  administration,  and  development  of  the 
national  forests  involve  financial  burdens  which  the  individ¬ 
ual  States  cannot  carry.  The  regular  expenditures  on  the 
forests  during  the  fiscal  year  1911  were  over  $3,400,000.  The 
receipts  for  the  same  year  were  about  $2,000,000.  Few, 
if  any,  of  the  national  forest  States  would  have  been  willing 
to  appropriate  the  amounts  necessary  to  cover  the  regular 
expenditures.  To  meet  the  additional  burden  of  emergency 
fire  protection  would  have  been  impossible.  In  Montana 
the  emergency  expenditure  was  over  $400,000,  in  Idaho 
$350,000,  and  in  Oregon  over  $100,000.  If  the  amounts  need¬ 
ed  had  not  been  available  at  the  time  of  critical  danger,  a 
vast  part  of  the  public  wealth  in  the  forests  would  have 
been  lost. 

The  foregoing  does  not  include  any  overhead  charges. 
The  national  forest  States  are  grouped  in  six  districts,  each 
with  a  supervising  and  inspecting  staff.  The  splitting  of 
the  six  administrative  units  into  twenty  would  double,  if 
not  treble,  the  overhead  charge.  In  the  same  way  there 
would  be  waste  and  ineffectiveness  in  the  conduct  of  sci¬ 
entific  work.  Good  forestry,  like  good  farming,  must  apply 
scientific  knowledge.  This  knowledge  the  Government  is 
now  gathering  in  connection  with  national  forest  administra¬ 
tion.  In  developing  American  forestry  it  has  built  up  a 
strong  technical  staff  and  instituted  far-reaching  studies  and 
experiments.  That  the  States  would  sufficiently  provide  for 
the  cost  of  such  work  is  improbable.  If  they  did,  the  cost 
would  be  greater,  the  results  smaller,  and  poorer  forestry 
would  result. 

Moreover,  the  forests  are  still  largely  undeveloped  wilder¬ 
ness.  Although  nearly  10,000  miles  of  trail,  7,000  miles  of 
telephone  lines,  and  over  1,000  cabins  and  other  structures 
have  been  built,  80,000  miles  of  trail  and  40,000  miles  of 
telephone  line  are  still  needed  to  complete  the'  primary  fire 
protective  system.  These  improvements  will  cost  not  less 
than  $8,000,000. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


89 


These  expenditures  are  not  excessive  for  an  area  equiva¬ 
lent  to  the  New  England  States,  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  and  Ohio, 
in  the  most  rugged  and  inaccessible  parts  of  the  West. 
The  present  cost  of  administering  and  protecting  the  forests, 
supervision  included,  amounts  to  little  more  than  two  cents 
an  acre  annually;  or,  as  insurance  on  the  property  protected, 
two  mills  on  the  dollar.  It  is  less  than  a  number  of  lumber 
companies  are  now  expending  solely  for  protecting  their  lands 
from  fire.  It  is  less  than  one-third  the  cost  of  the  public 
forests  of  British  India,  which  are  administered  far  more 
cheaply  than  those  of  any  other  foreign  nation.  But  the 
States  are  not  ready  to  assume  such  financial  burdens.  If 
they  attempted  it,  the  forests  would  either  be  inadequately 
protected  and  administered  or  they  would  be  managed  with 
a  view  to  greater  immediate  money  returns.  Destruction 
of  the  forests  by  fire  or  trespass  or  unrestricted  and  unsci¬ 
entific  methods  of  cutting,  rapid  depletion  of  their  timber  by 
overcutting,  and  private  exploitation  of  their  resources  at 
much  less  than  their  actual  value  would  be  the  inevitable 
results.  Few  of  the  States  have  as  yet  met  their  responsi¬ 
bilities  in  the  protection  of  forest  lands  now  owned  by  them 
or  their  citizens. 

Administration  by  the  Federal  Government  means  greater 
stability  of  policy.  Stability  in  the  policies  governing  the 
use  of  the  national  forests  is  a  necessity  of  axiomatic  char¬ 
acter.  Their  waterpowers  can  be  developed  only  under 
plans  made  for  long  periods.  Much  of  their  timber  can 
be  utilized  only  under  contracts  for  cutting  and  removal 
extending  over  fifteen  or  twenty  years.  Sudden  shifts  or 
changes  in  the  policy  or  methods  of  administration  would 
be  fatal.  In  the  administration  of  the  national  forests  a 
clear-cut,  uniform  policy  has  been  developed  and  applied 
by  the  Nation.  Its  results  are  known.  It  has  been  in  force 
for  years.  Transfer  the  forests  to  the  States,  and  twenty 
separate  and  distinct  policies  must  be  developed,  tested,  and 
tried'  out. 

It  must  be  conceded,  furthermore,  that  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment  has  higher  and  more  stable  standards  of  civil  serv¬ 
ice.  The  management  of  the  national  forests  under  its  di- 


90 


CONSERVATION  OF 


rection  has  been  free  from  political  consideration.  Every 
position  on  the  rolls  is  under  the  Civil  Service  Law.  It  is 
fair  to  raise  the  question  whether  similar  standards  of  civil 
service  and  similar  freedom  from  political  considerations 
could  be  expected  under  twenty  different  State  Governments. 
The  people  of  one  of  the  great  eastern  States  have  so  dis¬ 
trusted  its  governmental  machinery  and  have  been  so  fearful 
of  political  manipulations  that  fifteen  years  ago  they  for¬ 
bade  the  cutting  of  auy  timber  in  the  State  forests.  The 
more  far-sighted  citizens  and  officials  of  many  western 
States  have  been  sorely  handicapped  in  their  efforts  to  bring 
about  conservative,  businesslike  handling  of  the  lands  which 
those  States  now  own.  Political  considerations  are  openly 
of  controlling  weight  in  the  organization  of  the  land  and 
forestry  departments  of  a  number  of  the  States.  Few  of 
th'em  have  stable  civil  service  regulations  governing  their 
employees.  The  temptation  to  use  patronage  for  political 
purposes  is  the  dead  weight  to-day  on  the  administration 
of  the  game  laws  in  very  many  of  the  States.  With  its 
broa4er  responsibility,  its  more  stable  civil  service  regula¬ 
tions,  and  its  openness  to  more  searching  public  scrutiny,  the 
Federal  Government  is  a  far  safer  custodian  of  the  public 
interests  involved  than  would  be  provided  by  a  large  number 
of  individual  States. 

The  States  cannot  resist  the  influence  of  great  business 
interests,  either  in  making  or  executing  laws,  as  effectively 
as  the  Central  Government.  The  difficulty  of  even  the 
strongest  States  in  withstanding  the  constant  pressure  of 
such  interests  through  long  periods  of  years  has  been  demon¬ 
strated  over  and  over  again.  Many  States  have  been  abso¬ 
lutely  dominated  by  them.  Monopolies  of  National  scope 
have  been  developed  or  are  in  the  making  through  the  op¬ 
portunities  which  such  interests  formerly  had  to  acquire 
public  resources.  Each  additional  foothold  obtained  by  them 
in  the  national  forests  of  a  single  State  would  strengthen 
such  monopolies.  But  its  effect  upon  the  prosperity  and 
happiness  of  the  people  would  not  be  confined  to  the  State 
immediately  concerned. 

After  everything  else  has  been  said,  the  fundamental  fact 
remains  that  public  control  of  the  resources  contained  in  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


9i 


national  forests  can  be  assured  only  under  Federal  owner¬ 
ship.  The  transfer  to  State  ownership  is  now,  in  purpose, 
and  would  prove  in  effect,  the  breaking  up  of  public  control 
of  any  kind. 

The  amendment  offered  to  the  last  Agricultural  Appro¬ 
priation  Bill  provided  that,  after  the  national  forests  are 
acquired  by  the  States,  “thereafter  the  lands  so  conveyed 
shall  be  the  property  of  such  State,  and  shall  be  held,  ad¬ 
ministered,  settled,  and  disposed  of  by  such  State  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  laws  of  such  State.”  And,  further,  “that  after 
the  transfer  of  such  lands  to  the  State,  they  shall  be  opened 
to  settlement  and  sale  under  the  laws  of  said  State.”  In 
plain  terms,  the  abandonment  of  public  control  altogether 
and  opening  the  forests  to  acquisition  by  individuals  is 
proposed.  And  the  significant  fact  is  that  this  disposition  of 
the  forests  appeared  to  have  the  support  of  a  majority  of 
the  Senators  who  discussed  the  bill. 

The  history  of  the  movement  for  State  ownership  sup¬ 
ports  this  belief.  Its  most  earnest  advocates  are  the  very 
interests  whose  unrestrained  exploitation  of  public  resources 
was  stopped  by  the  creation  of  the  forests.  The  water  pow¬ 
er  corporations  have  been  its  foremost  champions.  Their 
acknowledged  representative  spoke  in  its  behalf  at  the  Con¬ 
servation  Congress  at  St  Paul  in  1910.  The  Public  Lands 
Convention,  which  met  at  Denver  in  October,  1911,  composed 
of  the  elements  in  the  West  which  have  always  fought  the 
reservation  of  these  areas  from  private  acquisition,  went  on 
record  in  support  of  State  control.  The  forces  which  op¬ 
posed  the  national  forests  at  their  inception  now  attack  by 
this  means,  not  any  given  agency  of  administration  or  any 
theoretical  usurpation  of  local  rights  by  the  Central  Govern¬ 
ment,  but  the  fundamental  principle  of  public  control  in  any 
form. 

A  number  of  the  western  States  themselves,  by  official 
acts,  have  shown  the  same  purpose  toward  the  resources  con¬ 
tained  in  the  national  forests.  The  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  Washington  passed  a  resolution  in  1903  requesting  that 
58,240  acres  of  very  heavily  timbered  land,  set  aside  for  for¬ 
est  reservation  purposes,  be  thrown  open  to  entry.  In  Feb¬ 
ruary,  1911,  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  by  joint  resolution, 


92 


CONSERVATION  OF 


requested  Congress  and  the  President  to  open  to  entry 
114,000  acres  in  the  Columbia  National  Forest  unfit  for  agri¬ 
culture.  On  February  15,  1911,  the  Legislature  of  Idaho  re¬ 
quested  the  President  to  eliminate  46,000  acres  from  the 
Cceur  d’Alene  National  Forest  in  that  State,  which  contained 
scarcely  one  hundred  acres  of  agricultural  land.  The  same 
State  requested  on  March  3,  1911,  the  elimination  of  portions 
of  three  townships  containing  similar  land  in  the  Pend  Oreille 
National  Forest. 

The  movement  for  State  ownership  is  thus  largely,  if  not 
wholly,  a  movement  for  the  abandonment  of  public  control. 
It  is  a  thinly  disguised  attack  upon  the  integrity  of  the  for¬ 
ests,  and,  through  them,  upon  the  whole  conservation  policy. 
Whether  private  acquisition  of  these  resources  is  proposed 
by  all  advocates  of  State  ownership  or  not,  such  would  be 
its  practical  effect.  It  is  believed  that  the  people  have  not 
changed  their  conviction  that  public  control  is  necessary. 
The  question  becomes,  then,  simply,  What  governmental 
agency  is  best  equipped  to  exercise  this  control  for  them? 
There  can  be  but  one  answer  to  this  question.  For  the 
strongest,  most  stable,  and  most  effective  administration  of 
these  resources  for  their  own  good  the  people  must  continue 
to  look  to  the  Federal  Government. 


NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 


Conference  of  Governors,  Proceedings. 

Pages  168-71.  Frank  R.  Gooding. 

Idaho  has  given  a  practical  demonstration  of  what  a 
State  can  do  for  the  development  of  its  own  resources,  in 
the  reclamation  of  its  desert  lands,  and  the  storage  of  its 
flood  waters,  under  the  law  known  as  the  Carey  Act,  passed 
by  Congress  in  1894,  giving  to  each  State  in  the  arid  por¬ 
tion  of  America  a  million  acres  of  land  to  be  reclaimed 
under  State  supervision.  Idaho  has  demonstrated  beyond 
the  question  of  a  doubt  that  the  people  of  a  State  are  best 
fitted  for  the  development  of  their  own  resources.  The  work 
of  reclamation  of  arid  lands  by  the  general  Government  and 
by  the  State  lie  side  by  side  in  Idaho,  where  the  Govern¬ 
ment  has  done  a  great  work,  for  which  we  are  all  thankful; 
yet,  valuable  as  this  work  is,  the  State,  in  the  same  length 
of  time,  and  under  the  same  conditions,  has  brought  about 
a  state  of  development  many  times  as  great  as  that  ac¬ 
complished  by  the  general  Government.  Idaho  has  con¬ 
structed  under  the  Carey  Act  the  largest  irrigation  canals 
in  the  world,  with  the  exception  of  those  built  by  the  British 
government  in  India  and  Egypt.  The  State  has  built  and 
has  under  construction  irrigation  works  that  will  reclaim 
more  than  a  million  acres  of  desert  land,  and  is  now  asking 
the  general  Government  for  two  million  acres  more,  under 
the  Carey  Act,  to  continue  this  work  of  home  building. 

Idaho  is  justly  proud  of  her  great  development  under 
the  Carey  Act.  Within  the  last  four  years  we  have  turned 
water  on  more  than  300,000  acres  of  what  was  then  a  bar¬ 
ren  waste,  and  transformed  it  into  fields  of  beautiful  grass 
and  waving  grain.  We  have  made  possible  the  building  of 
homes  for  more  than  60,000  people,  and  have  created  a  new 
wealth  for  the  State  of  more  than  $50,000,000.  Yet  in  this 


94 


CONSERVATION  OF 


work  of  home  building,  the  State  has  only  made  a  beginning. 
Within  the  next  five  years  Idaho  will  have  completed  all  of 
its  irrigation  works  for  the  first  million  acres  of  Carey  lands, 
thus  giving  an  opportunity  for  homes  for  more  than  250,000 
people,  and  creating  wealth  in  excess  of  $500,000,000.  The 
State  of  Idaho  will  continue  this  great  work  until  all  its  arid 
lands  are  reclaimed  and  every  acre  made  available  and  bene¬ 
ficial  to  mankind.  When  the  story  can  be  written  of 
Idaho’s  development  by  irrigation  it  will  tell  of  the  reclama¬ 
tion  of  more  than  5,000,000  acres  of  as  rich  land  as  can  be 
found  anywhere  in  the  world.  It  will  be  land  that  will 
equal  in  productiveness  20,000,000  acres  in  the  eastern 
States,  for  under  irrigation  there  are  no  failures  or  half¬ 
crops,  but  every  year  a  full  harvest  for  the  man  that  tills 
the  soil. 

Idaho  is  especially  fortunate  in  its  natural  waterfalls. 
I  feel  that  I  can  say  we  have  more  opportunities  for  the 
development  of  power  than  any  other  State  in  the  Union. 
The  work  of  developing  our  water  power  by  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  great  plants  is  going  hand  in  hand  with  the  reclama¬ 
tion  of  our  arid  lands.  The  State  is  not  only  reclaiming  its 

arid  lands,  but  has  entered  into  contracts  for  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  large  storage  reservoirs  that  will  control  the  flood 
waters  of  some  of  our  rivers.  Within  the  next  ten  years 
my  State  will  have  under  control  all  of  its  flood  waters, 
which  will  be  used  for  reclaiming  our  desert  lands.  This 
will  be  a  great  relief  to  the  people  who  live  in  the  lower 

valleys  through  which  these  rivers  empty  into  the  sea. 

What  Idaho  has  done  and  is  doing  in  reclaiming  her 
arid  lands  and  controlling  the  flood  waters  of  the  State,  it 
can  do  in  the  protection'  of  the  forest  and  the  range.  The 
people  of  Idaho  fully  understand  the  importance  of  the 
forests.  They  know  that  the  forests  conserve  the  waters 
that  are  as  the  life  blood  of  the  State,  and  if  they  are  given 
an  opportunity  they  will  conserve  and  protect  the  forests 
for  all  time — consistent  with  an  intelligent  use  by  the  people. 
Idaho  has  already  passed  a  law  for  the  protection  of  her 
forests  on  State  lands.  The  law  provides  that,  wherever 
the  land  is  more  valuable  for  forest  than  for  home  building, 
the  timber  shall  be  cut  under  State  supervision,  looking  to 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


95 


the  protection  of  the  young  trees,  and  throwing  such  other 
safeguards  around  it  as  will  insure  its  success  as  a  State 
forest.  In  my  judgment,  the  interests  of  the  whole  country 
would  be  best  served  if  Congress  would  turn  over  to  the 
States  all  of  the  public  domain,  under  proper  laws  looking 
to  the  protection  of  the  forest  and  the  range,  to  be  ad¬ 
ministered  and  developed  by  the  citizens  of  those  States.  I 
have  become  very  much  alarmed  of  late  at  the  public  senti¬ 
ment  growing  against  the  administration  of  the  national 
reserves  in  my  State,  for  I  know  their  administration  can 
not  be  successful  without  the  support  of  the  people.  There 
are  good  reasons  for  this  adverse  public  sentiment,  for  at 
times  proper  consideration  has  not  been  given  the  rights 
of  the  people.  Great  tracts  of  land  have  been  included  in 
the  reserves  upon  which  there  is  no  forest,  nor  ever  can  or 
will  be  a-  forest. 

More  of  the  area  of  my  State  is  in  national  forest  re¬ 
serves  than  that  of  any  other  State  or  Territory  in  the  Union. 
Forty  percent  of  my  State  is  today  in  national  forest  re¬ 
serves,  an  area  greater  in  extent  than  is  embraced  within 
the  States  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
Maine,  Vermont,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  Delaware, 
and  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  all  the  national  forest 
reserves  in  the  United  States  we  have  an  area  almost  as 
great  as  was  embraced  within  the  thirteen  original  States. 
These  great  reserves  extend  from  the  borders  of  Mexico 
on  the  south  to  the  British  possessions  on  the  north.  The 
varied  conditions  that  of  necessity  exist  over  this  vast 
extent  of  territory  make  it  impracticable,  in  my  judgment, 
to  accomplish  the  best  results  by  its  administration  here  in 
Washington. 

The  man  is  not  yet  born  that  can  prescribe  rules  and 

regulations  for  the  successful  administration  of  so  vast  a 

territory  as  this,  for  in  no  two  States  in  the  union  are  con¬ 
ditions  the  same.  What  might  be  practical  in  one  State 
might  be  ruinous  in  another.  I  have  seen  much  of  the  ad¬ 
ministration  of  the  national  forest  reserves  in  my  State 

during  the  past  few  years.  I  have  been  its  friend.  I  have 

given  it  my  support,  hoping  it  meant  something  for  the 
advancement  and  development  of  Idaho;  but  after  more 


96 


CONSERVATION  OF 


than  three  years  of  close  observation,  I  am  forced  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  theory  is  all  wrong,  and  that  the  work 
the  Government  is  trying  to  do  properly  belongs  to  the 
State. 

I  have  a  high  regard  for  the  Chief  Forester.  He  is 
trying  to  do  a  great  work,  a  work  that  must  be  done,  but 
it  never  will  be  successful  until  the  States  are  made  inter¬ 
ested  parties  in  the  development  of  their  own  resources. 
I  know  of  no  reason  why  the  States  should  not  be  entrusted 
with  the  protection  and  development  of  all  the  natural  re¬ 
sources  that  lie  within  their  borders.  The  West  is  not 
lacking  in  intelligence,  in  courage,  in  patriotism,  or  in  ap¬ 
preciation  of  the  marvelous  resources  that  a  kind  Providence 
has  given  us  with  so  generous  a  hand.  Idaho  is  asking  for 
an  opportunity  to  develop  her  own  resources.  We  desire 
the  assistance  of  the  general  Government,  not  its  guardian¬ 
ship.  Idaho  is  asking  for  the  same  spirit  of  the  Constitution 
that  has  been  given  to  all  the  States  east  of  the  Rockies, 
and  her  citizens  will  demonstrate  to  the  whole  world  that 
she  is  worthy  of  Statehood. 


Congressional  Record.  45:  265-70.  December  20,  1909. 

F.  W.  Mondell. 

That  the  Federal  Government  owns  the  public  lands  as  a 
proprietor  and  not  as  a  sovereign,  and  that  such  ownership 
by  the  Federal  Government  can  not  be  used  to  establish 
regulation  and  control  over  the  waters  within  a  State,  has 
not  only  been  settled  in  principle  by  numerous  Supreme 
Court  decisions,  but  is  self  evident,  else  the  people  of  the 
public-land  States  would  not  be  secure  in  the  enjoyment 
of  equality  of  sovereignty  and  opportunity  with  the  people 
of  the  other  States,  which  is  their  right. 

This  is  not  the  first  time  we  have  had  to  meet  a  demand 
for  Federal  control  over  the  use  and  distribution  of  water 
within  the  Western  States.  When  the  national  reclamation 
law  was  being  framed  the  question  arose  and  was  presented 
and  pressed  in  a  variety  of  forms,  but  Congress  and  Presi¬ 
dent  Roosevelt  indorsed  the  view  of  those  who  stood  for  a 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


97 


full  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  States  to  control  in  the 
appropriation  and  distribution  of  water,  and  that  doctrine 
was  written  in  section  8  of  the  act,  as  follows: 

Sec.  8.  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  as  af¬ 
fecting  or  intending  to  affect  or  to  in  any  way  interfere  with  the 
laws  of  any  State  or  Territory  relating  to  the  control,  appropria¬ 
tion,  use  or  disti'ibution  of  water  used  in  irrigation,  or  any  vested 
right  acquired  thereunder,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  in 
carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act,  shall  proceed  in  conformity 
with  such  laws,  and  nothing  herein  shall  in  any  way  affect  any 
right  of  any  State.  ... 

Congressional  Record.  45:  417-22.  January  8,  1910. 

Sylvester  C.  Smith. 

As  to  the  fifth  proposition,  the  control  of  these  public- 
service  corporations  by  national  authorities,  I  take  it  that  no 
one  who  has  ever  read  the  Federal  Constitution  will  contend 
that  such  control  may  be  exercised  as  a  matter  of  sov¬ 
ereignty.  That  power  resides  in  the  States.  The  law  of 
the  case  is  simple  and  easily  within  the  grasp  of  the  lay 
mind.  At  the  outset  the  colonies  or  original  States  each 
possessed  all  of  the  inherent  powers  of  sovereignties.  For 
sufficient  reasons  these  sovereign  States  formed  “a  more 
perfect  union,”  and  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
they  gave  to  the  new  government  certain  enumerated  pow¬ 
ers.  But  they  were  careful  to  say  that  “the  powers  not 
delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  pro¬ 
hibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States,  or 
to  the  people.”  Nowhere  in  the  Constitution  can  be  found 
any  delegation  of  authority  over  the  affairs  of  public-service 
corporations  doing  business  wholly  within  a  State.  This  is 
elemental  and  not  disputed  in  any  quarter  that  I  know  of. 

But  some  are  contending  that  such  a  power  may  be 
created  in  the  National  Government  by  the  contract  granting 
the  easement;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  claimed  by  a  few  that  the 
Government  might  say,  “We  will  give  you  the  right  to  cross 
public  land  if  you  will  agree  to  charge  consumers  only  such 
rates  a^  some  federal  official  shall  name.”  A  more  extra¬ 
ordinary  proposition  has  seldom  been  presented,  nor  one 
more  offensive  to  the  sovereign  States.  It  means  that  the 
people,  acting  through  their  state  and  local  governments, 


98 


CONSERVATION  OF 


can  not  be  trusted  to  care  for  themselves;  the  protecting 
wing  of  some  federal  official  must  be  spread  over  them. 
Who  has  a  right  to  say,  judging  by  past  experiences,  that 
the  people,  in  their  local  governments,  are  not  to  be  trusted? 
Or  that  the  States  should  abdicate  their  prerogatives  in 
favor  of  some  bureau  chief  here  at  the  national  capital? 
The  suggestion  is  offensive.  It  indicts  either  the  integrity 
or  the  sanity  of  the  people  in  their  local  affairs — the  same 
people,  by  the  way,  from  whom  springs  this  much-vaunted 
federal  superiority. 

I  want  to  be  put  down  as  one  who  does  not  hold  this  low 
estimate  of  the  State  Governments. 

But  any  attempt  to  run  local  affairs  from  Washington 
must  prove  futile.  The  rights  and  powers  of  a  State  can 
not  be  taken  away  from  it  either  by  act  of  Congress  or  by 
a  contract  to  which  the  State  is  not  a  party,  or  by  contract 
at  all.  Let  us  suppose  a  very  plain  case. 

Suppose  the  Federal  Government,  by  due  enactment, 
should  decree  that  the  price  of  power  in  a  given  community 
should  be  $30  per  horsepower  year.  Suppose  the  consumers, 
being  dissatisfied,  appeal  to  their  State  for  relief,  and  the 
latter,  upon  inquiry,  says  the  rate  should  be  $25  or  $28. 
Or  suppose  the  power  company,  claiming  the  national  rate 
was  too  low,  should  seek  protection  from  the  State  and  the 
latter  should  find  that  the  rate  should  be  $32  or  $35.  Does 
any  one  doubt  what  would  become  of  the  federal  rate?  If 
we  can  not  do  this  work  thoroughly  and  effectively,  we 
had  better  leave  it  alone.  Any  attempt  to  deal  with  the 
subject  here  might  be  used  to  defeat  necessary  state  legis¬ 
lation,  and  thus  do  much  harm  and  no  good  in  the  end. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  to  give  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment  power  to  regulate  prices  charged  the  public  for 
power  would  not  be  creating  a  new  power  of  protection  to 
the  people;  it  would  only  be  changing  this  power  from  the 
hands  of  local  authorities  to  the  authorities  at  Washington. 
At  the  present  time  city  or  town  trustees  have  as  much 
power  to  regulate  prices  charged  by  power  companies  within 
their  respective  fields  of  authority  as  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  could  ever  acquire.  Outside  the  cities  and  towns  the 
county  authorities  have  this  power. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


99 


Now,  supposing  that  there  is  a  plan  on  foot  to  bring  all 
the  power  companies  of  the  Nation  together  in  a  gigantic 
trust.  Which  would  suit  this  trust  better,  to  have  the  author¬ 
ity  to  fix  its  charges  divided  among  several  thousand  local 
officials,  each  of  whom  is  closely  in  touch  with  the  people 
whom  he  represents  and  to  whom  he  must  look  for  a  con¬ 
tinuance  of  his  authority,  or  to  have  the  power  tg  fix  charges 
throughout  all  the  Nation  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  one 
federal  executive  officer  who  owes  no  direct  responsibility 
to  the  people  and  is  not  selected  by  them?  Assuming  that 
the  majority  of  public  officials  are  corruptible,  which  would 
be  the  cheapest  for  the  supposed  water-power  trust  to  buy, 
one  Cabinet  officer,  bureau  chief,  or  department  clerk,  or 
all  the  city  and  town  trustees  and  all  the  county  supervisors 
in  all  the  States  interested? 

Assuming  that  only  a  few  public  officials  are  corruptible, 
which  would  offer  the  trust  the  greatest  chance  of  securing 
an  unfair  advantage — to  have  one  office  or  one  commission 
to  fill  with  purchasable  material,  or  to  be  obliged  to  control 
the  elections  in  every  town  and  county  in  the  Nation? 

This  is  the  gist  of  the  question:  Is  it  safer  for  the  people 
to  keep  the  authority  to  superintend  these  public  affairs  in 
the  hands  of  their  own  neighbors — men  whom  they  meet 
socially  and  in  a  business  way  and  to  whom  they  can  go  at 
any  time  with  their  protests — or  to  put  it  in  the  hands  of 
an  unknown  man  at  the  national  capital  whom  they  prob¬ 
ably  could  not  see  if  they  took  the  trouble  to  go  to  Wash¬ 
ington,  and  who,  in  the  nature  of  things,  could  know 
nothing,  either  at  first,  second,  or  third  hand,  of  the  local 
conditions?  Who  would  really  do  the  work  under  federal 
supervision?  The  President  could  not,  for  he  is  already 
overworked.  A  Cabinet  officer  or  bureau  chief  could  not 
handle  the  thousands  of  cases  for  the  same  reason.  The 
real  work  of  investigating  the  facts,  as  to  the  actual  amount 
of  capital  invested  in  each  case,  the  cost  of  operation, 
amount  of  depreciation,  and  needs  for  betterments,  would 
be  done  by  some  subordinate  whose  name  even  is  not 
known  throughout  the  floor  on  which  he  works.  I  do  not 
mean  to  cast  any  aspersions  on  this  class  of  workers  as  a 
class,  but  I  assert  that  it  is  preposterous  to  say  they  can 


100 


CONSERVATION  OF 


better  be  trusted  to  guard  the  interests  of  the  people  than 
town  and  county  officials  when  the  attacking  party  is  the 
“power  trust,”  of  which  we  have  heard  not  a  little. 

A  man  very  prominent  in  water-power  affairs  in  the 
West  said  to  me  not  long  ago  that  if  Congress  would  only 
give  some  bureau  chief  authority  to  grant  permits  for  a 
definite  term  of  years  they  would  be  satisfied.  He  rested 
easy  that  they  could  make  satisfactory  terms  in  due  time. 

But  whether  we  will  it  or  not,  the  States  will  have  a 
large  part  in  the  construction  and  operation  of  these  great 
agencies.  It  so  happens  that  there  are  certain  constitutional 
restraints  placed  on  the  actions  of  Congress  and  certain 
powers  reserved  to  the  States,  powers  amounting  to  duties, 
powers  which  can  not  be  laid  down  or  surrendered,  and 
powers  which  the  people  directly  affected  will  certainly  call 
into  action.  Before  we  assume  to  do  too  much  here  in  this 
body,  let  us  note  what  some  of  these  powers  of  the  State 
are.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  State — 

To  incorporate  a  company  to  build  the  plant. 

To  limit  its  capitalization — a  matter  of  the  very  first  im¬ 
portance  in  connection  with  rate  making. 

To  make  rules  governing  the  construction  of  dams,  pipe 
lines,  and  so  forth,  even  on  the  public  domain. 

To  protect  the  plant  from  injury  by  the  mischievous  or 
evil-minded. 

To  make  rules  for  the  distribution  of  the  current,  so  that 
the  consumer  may  not  be  oppressed. 

To  fix  the  price  at  which  the  current  shall  be  supplied. 

To  enforce  the  payment  of  the  lawful  rate  and  prevent 
the  collection  of  a  higher  one. 

These  powers  can  not  be  taken  away  from  the  States, 
and  these  duties  can  not  be  performed  by  the  Federal 
Government  if  the  States  assert  their  rights. 


Congressional  Record.  45:  1349-54.  February  1,  1910. 

,\ 

Edward  T.  Taylor. 

With  all  due  respect  to  everyone,  I  can  not  appreciate 
the  brotherly  spirit  exhibited  in  some  of  these  measures 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


IOI 


presented  by  Members  coming  from  the  States  that  have 
been  settled  and  built  up  by  the  leniency  of  this  Govern¬ 
ment;  States  that  had  not  one-tenth  the  hardships  that  the 
present  frontier  States  have  to  endure,  and  that  have  been 
made  rich  by  settlement  and  development  during  the  past 
hundred  years,  and  which  now  seek  to  hamper  and  place 
unwarranted  burdens  upon  the  new  and  needy  States  of 
the  West.  Moreover,  it  is  also  passing  strange  that  none 
of  these  proposed  measures  for  encroachments  upon  our 
rights,  as  I  view  them,  come  from  people  who  are  familiar 
with  our  conditions.  To  me  these  paternalistic  and  central¬ 
izing  tendencies  appear  little  short  of  national  bureaucracy 
run  mad.  It  would  be  no  more  unfair,  unconstitutional,  or 
illegal  for  the  National  Government  to  commence  taxing 
and  proceed  to  derive  an  enormous  revenue  from  the  use 
of  navigable  rivers  and  harbors,  upon  the  theory  that  it 
retains  a  certain  interest  therein.  Why  does  not  some  of 
the  muckrakers  work  up  a  scare  about  an  impending  monop¬ 
oly  of  the  power  sites  of  the  streams  of  the  East?  Why 
does  not  some  one  discover  the  secret  formation  of  a 
gigantic  trust  composed  of  all  the  navigable  waters  and 
frantically  appeal  to  the  Government  to  take  them  all  over 
and  charge  the  users  of  them  $1,000,000,000  a  year  royalty 
for  their  conservation  and  preservation  for  the  national 
good  and  for  the  welfare  of  future  generations,  and  inci¬ 
dentally  for 'a  large  number  of  new  offices?  I  am  heartily 
in  favor  of  conservation,  and  I  would  especially  like  to  see 
some  conservation  of  law  and  of  the  constitutional  rights 
of  the  people  of  the  West.  I  want  to  see  the  conservation 
of  a  little  old-fashioned  honesty  and  fair  dealing. 

It  has  been  one  of  the  important  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  settlers  of  every  State  in  this  Union  for  a  hundred 
years  to  use  free  of  charge  the  public  domain  for  the  graz¬ 
ing  of  their  stock,  and  why  should  not  our  cattle  be  al¬ 
lowed  to  eat  government  grass  which  would  otherwise  go 
to  waste?  It  did  not  cost  Uncle  Sam  a  dollar,  and  why 
should  the  Government,  now  for  the  first  time  in  a  century, 
inflict  a  tax  upon  the  people  of  the  West  for  the  grazing 
of  that  grass?  And  why  should  it  be  a  criminal  offense  for 
a  settler’s  cow  to  stray  onto  a  forest  reserve?  I  do  not 


102 


’CONSERVATION  OF 

believe  this  great  Government  needs  the  60  cents;  nor  do  I 
believe  it  is  justified  in  collecting  that  sum  from  the  strug¬ 
gling  settler  for  what  grass  each  head  of  his  stock  can  find 
on  the  arid  public  domain  during  each  short  summer. 

But,  in  brief,  we  insist  that  the  policy  of  this  Govern¬ 
ment,  ever  since  the  adoption  of  our  Federal  Constitution, 
has  been  that  each  State  was  entitled  to  and  has  always 
enjoyed  the  benefits  of  the  natural  wealth  and  resources 
and  climatic  conditions  within  its  borders.  We  simply  ask 
at  your  hands  and  of  this  administration  the  application 
of  that  same  principle  to  the  States  of  the  West  that  has 
always  prevailed  in  and  been  accorded  to  the  older  Com¬ 
monwealths.  Moreover,  the  legitimate  and  practical  regula¬ 
tion  and  control  and  safeguarding  of  the  resources  of  each 
State  should  be  within  the  province  of  the  state  government, 
and  whatever  revenues  are  derived  therefrom  should  pass 
into  the  state  and  county  treasuries. 

American  citizens  do  not  take  kindly  to  absentee  land¬ 
lordism.  We  do  not  relish  tyrannical  interference  with  our 
local  affairs.  We  do  not  like  bureaucratic  rule.  We  prefer 
to  be  governed  by  law  and  by  our  own  people.  We  want 
the  laws  intelligently  framed  in  the  light  of  the  welfare  of 
the  government,  as  well  as  of  the  governing  body.  We  do 
not  consider  an  officer’s  proclamation  of  his  own  virtue  a 
sufficient  reason  for  setting  aside  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  or  even  the  acts  of  Congress.  We  do  not 
want  to  have  to  go  to  the  Land  Office  and  the  office  of  the 
forest  supervisor  every  morning  to  learn  what  the  law  is. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  Alps  of  Switzerland,  the  High¬ 
lands  of  Scotland,  and  the  mountainous  regions  of  the 
earth  have  always  been  the  most  intensely  patriotic  and 
liberty-loving  people,  and  the  citizens  of  the  West  now  are, 
and  the  succeeding  generations  will  be,  a  perpetual  exempli¬ 
fication  of  this  rule.  We  are  2,000  miles  away,  but  we  are 
your  younger  brothers  still.  Do  not  impose  upon  us  be¬ 
cause  you  have  the  power  to  do  so.  Let  us  develop  our 
own  resources,  and  we  will  soon  become  a  storehouse  of 
wealth  to  this  Nation. 


1 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


103 


Congressional  Record.  45:  1476-7.  February  4,  1910. 

Letter  of  Arthur  J.  Shaw  to  Senator  Wesley  L.  Jones. 

My  Dear  Senator:  I  trust  that  you  will  not  think  it 
impertinent  on  my  part  to  express  my  views  to  you  con¬ 
cerning  the  national  resources  on  the  public  lands  of  the 
United  States.  As  you  know,  I  have  for  many  years  been 
employed  in  the  government  land  service,  and  have  been 
a  resident  of  Idaho  and  Washington  for  twenty-seven  years. 

Before  the  Federal  Constitution  was  adopted  by  the 
legislatures  of  the  13  original  colonies  all  the  lands  and 
water  thereon  and  natural  resources — such  as  timber,  coal, 
minerals,  and  water  power — were  declared  to  be  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  the  people  of  the  respective  colonies.  After  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  all  the  lands  within  these  colo¬ 
nies  and  the  lands  constituting  the  States  of  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee  were  owned,  controlled,  and  sold  by  these 
respective  States.  All  the  remaining  outlying  lands  con¬ 
stituted  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States. 

From  the  20th  day  of  May,  1785,  to  June  30,  1909,  under 
the  various  acts  of  Congress,  there  was  received  from  the 
sale  of  the  public  lands  and  converted  into  the  general  fund 
of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  $423,135,507.90.  Nearly 
every  settler  who  has  contributed  his  earnings  to  this 
amount  has  had  to  borrow  his  proportion  of  this  money 
and  pay  interest  thereon.  It  is  not  an  unreasonable  estimate 
to  make  when  it  is  stated  that  the  public-land  owners  of 
the  South  and  West  have  been  obliged  to  earn  and  pay 
$1,000,000,000  to  secure  title  to  their  homes.  The  new  States 
now  constitute  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  United  States 
of  America.  Is  there  any  valid  reason  why  these  new  States 
should  be  required  to  pay  nearly  half  of  a  billion  dollars  into 
the  general  fund  of  the  Public  Treasury  when  the  original 
States  were  not  required  to  pay  a  single  dollar?  If  this  can 
only  be  answered  in  the  negative,  why  should  the  public- 
land  States  continue  to  pay  annually  $9,000,000  from  the 
sale  of  lands  into  the  Treasury? 

Not  only  the  lands  of  the  original  States,  but  all  of  their 
“natural  resources”  were  and  are  owned  and  utilized  locally, 
and,  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  it  is  not  within  the 


104 


CONSERVATION  OF 


power  of  this  Government  to  control  them,  except  by  pur¬ 
chase.  Under  the  circumstances  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
the  predatory  dollar,  the  trusts,  the  syndicate,  the  Morgans, 
or  the  Rockefellers  from  absorbing  everything  in  this  un¬ 
fortunately  unprotected  portion  of  the  United  States. 

When  the  public  surveys — no  public  surveys  were  ever 
made  in  the  original  States — were  to  be  extended  over 
government  lands,  it  was  provided  by  statute  that  the  lines 
of  survey  should  not  be  extended  over  navigable  or  tide 
waters  of  the  United  States.  The  banks  and  beds  of 
streams,  together  with  the  waters  therein,  were  reserved 
from  sale,  and  when  the  new  States  were  admitted  to  the 
Union  these  banks  and  beds  of  streams  and  all  the  waters 
within  those  states  were  declared  to  be  the  property  of  the  re¬ 
spective  States.  State  control  and  State  ownership  has 
always  been  exercised  over  this  class  of  property,  subject 
to  the  right  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  may  be  a.  matter  of  doubt  as  to 
whether  the  Federal  Government  has  a  right  to  charge  for 
the  use  of  water  within  a  State.  The  various  States  have, 
through  their  legislatures,  declared  title  to  all  waters  with¬ 
in  the  States  and  have  provided  statutory  ways  and  means 
by  which  title  can  be  acquired  for  irrigation,  mining,  and 
manufacturing  purposes. 

In  1877  (see  discussion  in  Congressional  Record,  44th 
Cong.,  vol.  5,  pt.  3,  pp.  1966  to  1968)  Congress  passed  an 
act  which  provided  that  “the  water  of  all  lakes,  rivers,  and 
other  sources  of  water  supply  upon  the  public  lands  and  not 
navigable  shall  remain  and  be  held  free  for  the  appropria¬ 
tion  and  use  of  the  public  for  irrigation,  mining,  and  man¬ 
ufacturing  purposes,  subject  to  existing  rights.”  Thus  the 
non-navigable  waters  in  Territories  and  navigable  and  non- 
navigable  waters  in  States  are  held  free  for  a  useful  pur¬ 
pose,  subject  to  existing  rights.  In  order  to  give  force  to 
this  statute  existing  rights  must  clearly  mean  existing  ap¬ 
propriations  of  water  for  a  useful  purpose.  The  statutory 
authority  to  hold  the  water  “free  for  public  appropriation” 
must  necessarily  abrogate  the  old  common-law  riparian 
ownership  on  all  government  lands  and  on  all  lands  pur¬ 
chased  from  the  Government  since  the  passage  of  this  act. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


105 


This  statute  is  the  only  safeguard  for  the  Reclamation 
Service  in  the  West.  But  for  it  the  riparian  owners  along 
the  streams  and  lakes  wherein  water  is  diverted  for  irriga¬ 
tion  and  other  purposes  could  maintain  innumerable  suits 
for  damages,  and  thus  hamper  and  possibly  prevent  the  di¬ 
version  of  water  for  the  useful  purposes  named  in  this 
statute.  This  statute  was  enacted  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people,  and  it  should  never  be  repealed. 

If  Congress  should  change  the  rule  of  property  rights  in 
water  and  charge  a  nominal  fee  per  horsepower,  as  has 
been  suggested,  what  would  be  the  result?  The  longest 
electrical-power  line  in  the  world  is  less  than  200  miles  in 
length.  If  a  train  upon  a  track  electrically  equipped  should 
be  started  with  hydro-electrical  power,  furnished  from  the 
greatest  power-producing  plant  in  the  world,  it  would  be¬ 
come  stalled  for  want  of  power  within  a  radius  of  200  miles 
from  its  starting  point.  Thus  the  patrons  within  this  small 
radius  of  territory  would  be  obliged  to  pay  the  federal  tax 
per  horsepower  for  water  used  for  power  and  lighting  pur¬ 
poses.  Is  there  any  equitable  reason  by  the  people  of  the 
South  and  West  should  pay  a  consumers’  tax  on  water 
power  that  is  not  paid  by  the  consumer  living  in  the  first 
States  constituting  this  Union? 

Within  the  Pacific  Coast  States  in  the  near  future  will 
be  built  an  empire  equal  to  the  Atlantic  coast  empire.  To 
encourage  its  upbuilding  it  should  have  all  the  natural 
power  and  fuel  at  its  command  at  a  minimum  cost.  Instead 
of  saying  to  the  investing  dollar,  you  shall  not  develop  these 
national  resources  without  paying  a  bounty,  concessions 
should  be  made  in  aid  of  their  development.  In  the  sparsely 
settled  sections  of  the  West  and  South  it  is  very  difficult 
to  interest  capital  in  the  development  of  hydro-electrical 
power,  for  the  reason  that  a  million  dollars  or  more  is  re¬ 
quired  to  construct  and  install  a  power  plant.  If  a  govern¬ 
ment  tax  is  added  the  investing  dollar  will  naturally  be 
located  in  one  of  the  original  States,  which  will,  to  that 
extent  at  least,  retard  the  manufacturing  industries  of  the 
South  and  West. 

It  is  also  suggested  that  a  tax  be  paid  on  every  ton  of 
coal  that  is  mined  from  the  public  domain.  Coal  is  valuable 


I 


'  106  CONSERVATION  OF 

/ 

for  the  units  of  heat  it  will  produce.  When  its  cost  of 
production  and  its  cost  of  transportation  equals  its  value 
in  units  of  heat  the  extent  of  the  area  in  which  it  can  be 
marketed  is  determined.  If  a  tax  is  added,  which  will  in¬ 
crease  the  cost,  the  area  will  be  lessened  to  that  extent, 
and  the  consumers  within  that  area  must  pay  the  added  tax. 

Nearly  all  the  producing  coal  mines  in  this  country  are 
owned  and  operated  by  railway  companies.  If  a  royalty 
is  levied  upon  coal  mined  upon  government  land,  it  will 
permit  the  railway  companies,  as  competitors,  to  charge 
the  consumer  so  much  more  for  coal  and  thus  place  millions 
of  money  in  the  pockets  of  the  coal  barons  at  the  expense 
of  the  consumer.  Coal  is  usually  sold  at  the  mine  at  a  very 
small  profit  per  ton.  The  large  mines  of  Ohio  and  West 
Virginia  are  leased  upon  a  royalty  of  io  cents  per  ton. 
Under  like  conditions  in  the  west  a  nominal  government 
royalty,  necessarily  small,  would  constitute  a  large  portion 
of  the  profit. 

It  costs  about  $200,000  to  develop  and  equip  a  coal  mine, 
and  it  is  doubtful  if  any  company  could  be  found  willing  to 
undertake  the  task  of  mining  coal  on  leased  lands  in  compe¬ 
tition  with  the  old  companies,  with  a  government  bounty 
as  a  handicap. 

The  various  kinds  of  coal  found  in  the  Territory  of 
Alaska  have  never  been  marketed,  because  of  the  excessive 
cost  of  development  and  the  lack  of  transportation,  and  it 
is  very  doubtful  if  this  so-called  and  misnamed  “great 
Alaskan  wealth”  will  ever  materialize  without  government 
aid. 

The  steam  locomotive  is  the  great  consumer  of  the 
world’s  supply  of  coal.  A  250-ton  locomotive  will  pull  60 
carloads  of  freight  from  New  York  to  the  foothills  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains.  When  this  point  is  reached  double- 
header  locomotives  are  used  for  a  distance;  then  the  train 
is  cut  in  two  and  two  double-headers  are  supplied.  Just 
before  the  last  steep  climb  is  made  to  the  mountain  tunnels, 
which  are  nearly  a  mile  above  the  level  of  the  sea,  a  large 
locomotive  is  added  to  push  each  train  throughi  the  tunnels. 
Thus  six  times  as  many  units  of  heat  are  consumed  in 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


107 


transporting  freight  over  the  mountain  ranges  of  the  West 
as  is  required  on  level  territory. 

Coming  down  the  sides  of  these  mountains,  from  snow¬ 
capped  peaks,  are  thousands  upon  thousands  of  tons  of 
water  capable,  if  harnessed  into  electrical  power,  to  carry  a 
much  greater  tonnage  over  the  great  western  divides  with¬ 
out  consuming  the  local  coal  reserves.  Instead  of  levying 
a  tribute  for  this  power,  and  thus  raising  the  freight  rates 
proportionately  for  the  consumers  of  the  West,  it  would 
seem  to  be  a  wise  precaution  in  the  exercise  of  economy  in 
our  political  housekeeping  to  encourage,  and,  if  necessary, 
compel  the  great  railway  companies  to  use  hydro-electrical 
power  wherever  possible  and  thus  conserve  for  public  use 
the  coal  reserves  'of  this  country.  Such  a  policy  would 
naturally  reduce  the  consumption  of  coal  and  lessen  its  cost 
to  the  consumer. 

A  large  portion  of  the  timber  reserves  of  this  country 
have  passed  beyond  federal  control.  When  the  States  of 
Washington,  Idaho,  and  Utah  were  admitted  to  the  Union 
their  estimated  wealth  in  timber  was  a  very  attractive 
feature.  Settlers  came  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States, 
knowing  how  valuable  an  asset  timber  lands  would  soon  be¬ 
come,  made  filings,  and  prosecuted  their  claims  to  patent 
in  the  shortest  time  possible.  Large  tracts  were  combined 
and  sold  to  sawmilling  companies.  Some  of  these  com¬ 
panies  attempted  to  enlarge  their  holdings  by  securing 
dummy  entrymen  to  make  final  proof  upon  lands  adjacent 
to  their  mills.  When  Judge  Ballinger  was  appointed  Com¬ 
missioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  special  agents  were 
appointed  by  him  to  inspect  all  entered  lands  and  ascer¬ 
tain  the  good  faith  and  compliance  with  the  statutes  of  the 
entryman  before  final  proof  was  made.  This  wise  precau¬ 
tion  is  in  practice  to  this  day,  and  it  is  now  virtually  im¬ 
possible  for  an  applicant  to  obtain  title  to  land  through 
fraud. 

When  the  forest  reserves  were  extended  over  the  great 
land  grants  of  the  continental  roads  of  the  West,  the  rail¬ 
road  companies  owning  these  granted  lands  at  once  applied 
for  and  received  land  scrip  in  lieu  of  the  lands  thus  taken 
into  the  forest  reserves.  That  the  reader  may  fully  under- 


io8 


CONSERVATION  OF 


stand  where  valuable  timber  is  found  on  mountains  it  will 
only  be  necessary  to  state  that  the  action  of  the  rains  and 
melting  snows  washes  the  rich  soil  to  the  foothills  and  val¬ 
leys,  where  the  heavy  growth  of  timber  is  found  at  a  com¬ 
paratively  low  altitude.  Upon  ascending  the  mountain  the 
trees  diminish  in  size  until  the  timber  line  is  reached,  where 
the  climate  is  so  cold  that  nothing  will  grow. 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  these  railway  companies 
had  many  thousands  of  acres  within  their  land  grant,  ex¬ 
tending  across  the  mountains,  that  were  absolutely  worth¬ 
less.  To  place  or  extend  a  forest  reserve  over  these  granted 
lands  could  only  result  in  a  gift  of  millions  of  dollars  in 
script  to  the  railway  companies.  This  script  was  at  once 
sold  to  large  mill  companies,  who  located  all  the  valuable 
timber  lands  along  the  foothills  and  valleys  of  the  moun¬ 
tains  accessible  to  transportation  in  the  States  above  named. 
When  these  States  were  admitted  to  the  Union,  Congress 
very  properly,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  13  original  States 
owned  and  utilized  all  their  land,  donated  to  each  of  these 
new  States  200,000  acres  of  land  for  school  and  capitol 
building  purposes.  The  governors  of  these  States  have  not 
to  this  day  been  able  to  locate  the  whole  amount  of  these 
donated  lands,  for  the  reason  that  script  locations  have  been 
made  in  advance  of  the  government  surveys.  In  the  mean¬ 
time,  the  prospective  settler  is  crowded  back  upon  the 
mountain  sides  within  the  forest  reserve,  where  little  of 
value  is  found.  Could  it  be  possible  for  the  people  of  these 
respective  States  to  have  squandered  their  greatest  wealth 
if  they  had  originally  owned  these  lands?  Does  conserva¬ 
tion  conserve? 

If  there  is  anything  of  value  left,  would  it  not  be  wise 
to  let  the  people  of  the  land-grant  States,  who  understand 
local  conditions  and  values,  own  and  control  their  own 
natural  resources  without  the  burden  of  additional  taxation? 
It  is  only  through  their  work  and  enterprise  that  these 
resources  have  been  made  valuable,  and  why  should  the 
people  of  other  States  share  in  the  fruits  of  their  labor? 

There  is  not  a  single  owner  having  large  holdings  in 
sheep  or  cattle  who  has  been  able  to  obtain  a  favorable 
lease  to  the  exclusion  of  the  local  settler  at  a  nominal  figure 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


109 


on  the  forest  reserves,  for  a  stock  range,  who  does  not 
favor  the  present  plan  of  the  conservation  of  natural  re¬ 
sources.  There  is  not  a  single  owner  of  timbered  lands  who 
expects  to  purchase  the  small  amount  of  timber  now  re¬ 
maining  on  the  forest  reserves  at  a  nominal  figure  who  does 
not  favor  the  reforestation  plan  proposed  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment.  It  is  natural  that  this  should  be  the  case.  But  how 
about  the  interests  of  the  people  who  have  made  these 
natural  resources  valuable?  They  would  like  to  share  some 
of  the  beneficial  results  of  their  labor  and  self-sacrifice. 

If  hydro-electrical  power  is  to  be  the  substitute  for  the 
power  now  generated  from  the  vanishing  supply  of  coal 
and  wood,  then  it  will  soon  be  necessary  to  construct  power 
plants  on  nearly  all  of  the  navigable  rivers  throughout  the 
United  States.  Applications  may  soon  be  made  to  Congress 
for  authority  to  construct  perhaps  20  or  more  (or  as  many 
as  the  natural  fall  of  the  river  will  permit)  generating  sta¬ 
tions  on  the  Hudson  River  to  furnish  light,  power,  and  heat 
for  the  people  of  New  York  City  and  the  surrounding  coun¬ 
try.  Will  the  people  of  this  metropolitan  city  vote  to  pay 
an  additional  federal  tax  every  time  they  press  the  button? 
The  voters  of  this  country  might  be  induced  once  to  cast 
their  ballots  for  the  proposed  plan  for  the  conservation  of 
natural  resources,  but  when  they  understand  that  by  so 
doing  they  must  pay  the  additional  tax,  no  Member  of  Con¬ 
gress  could  expect  to  be  elected  on  that  issue  a  second  time. 

Mr.  Lincoln  once  said  that  “You  can  fool  all  the  people 
some  of  the  time  and  a  part  of  the  people  all  of  the  time, 
but  you  can’t  fool  all  the  people  all  the  time.” 


Congressional  Record.  45:  4254.  April  5,  1910. 

Attitude  of  Seattle  Chamber  of  Commerce  on  Conservation. 

[Report  unanimously  adopted  March  22,  1910.] 

To  the  President  of  the  United  States, 

Members  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 

and  representative  commercial  organizations : 

After  more  than  three  months  of  careful  study  and  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  subject  of  conservation  and  analysis  of 


I  10 


CONSERVATION  OF 


conditions,  past,  present,  and  future,  involving  not  only  the 
Pacific  Northwest,  but  the  entire  United  States,  the  commit¬ 
tee  on  national  affairs  complied  with  the  request  of  the 
Seattle  Chamber  of  Commerce  for  the  submission  of  recom¬ 
mendations  on  the  question  now  commanding  so  much  pub¬ 
lic  attention. 

The  report  appearing  hereafter  was  prepared  and  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  Hon.  Thomas 
Burke,  former  chief  justice  of  the  territorial  supreme  court, 
and  concurred  in  by  other  members,  including  Hon.  John 
H.  McGraw,  former  governor  of  the  State  of  Washington; 
W.  D.  Wood,  former  mayor  of  Seattle  and  president  of  the 
Trustee  Company;  Rev.  M.  A.  Matthews,  pastor  of  the 
First  Presbyterian  Church,  Seattle;  and  Hon.  C.  H.  Han¬ 
ford,  judge  of  the  United  States  district  court. 

The  report  was  unanimously  adopted  as  expressing  the 
sentiment  and  convictions  of  the  people  of  this  community 
and  reflecting  the  views  of  the  citizens  of  the  Pacific  North¬ 
west.  It  is  as  follows: 

Precautions  Against  Monopoly 

March  21,  1910. 

The  Seattle  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Seattle,  Wash. 

Gentlemen:  Your  committee  on  national  affairs,  to  which 
was  referred  the  subject  of  conservation,  begs  leave  to  re¬ 
port  as  follows: 

The  changes  which  have  taken  place  in  this  country  in 
the  last  thirty  years  have  given  an  importance  to  coal  and 
water  power  not  dreamed  of  forty  years  ago.  This  is  espe¬ 
cially  so  in  the  case  of  water  power,  the  use  of  which  has 
been  so  greatly  extended  by  means  of  discovery  and  inven¬ 
tion  in  the  domain  of  electricity.  In  order  to  meet  these 
new  conditions  in  such  a  way  as,  while  affording  to  incoming 
settlers  every  facility  and  encouragement  for  developing  the 
great  natural  resources  of  the  undeveloped  West,  shall  pre¬ 
vent  a  monopoly  in  such  of  them  as  might  be  thus  con¬ 
trolled,  your  committee  believes  that  hereafter  in  the  dis¬ 
posal  of  public  lands  controlling  water  power  or  containing 
deposits  of  coal  a  power  to  protect  the  public  against  un¬ 
reasonable  prices  should  be  reserved  to  the  State  where  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


1 1 1 

land  is  within  a  State  and  to  the  Government  where  the 
land  is  within  a  Territory  and  to  pass  to  the  future  State 
when  organized. 

Reserve  Control  to  State 

It  seems  to  us  that  this  could  best  be  accomplished 
by  a  law  which  should  provide  that  in  every  sale  of 
public  land  controlling  water  power  or  containing  coal  the 
right  to  regulate  the  price  of  the  coal  and  water  power 
should  be  reserved  to  the  State  within  which  they  are  situ¬ 
ate,  and  when  within  a  Territory  to  the  United  States,  to 
pass  to  the  State  to  be  created  out  of  such  Territory.  In 
case  of  a  dispute  as  to  what  constituted  a  reasonable  price, 
a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  could  be  called  upon  at  the 
instance  of  any  interested  party  to  determine  the  question. 
This,  with  appropriate  National  legislation  where  Congress 
has  the  power,  and  State  legislation  within  the  State’s  juris¬ 
diction,  forbidding  overcapitalization  would,  we  submit,  be 
an  effectual  safeguard  for  the  public,  while  not  preventing 
the  needful  and  desirable  development  of  the  natural  re¬ 
sources  of  the  country. 

Conservation  Results  from  Use 

The  people  of  the  Pacific  Northwest  who,  by  making 
their  homes  here,  by  their  sacrifices,  energy,  and  industry 
in  building  up  the  country,  have  made  these  lands  and 
mines  and  water  power  worth  while,  have  a  vital  interest 
in  the  early  development  and  utilization  of  the  natural  wealth 
of  the  country.  The  home  seekers  who  are  now  coming 
here  in  ever-increasing  numbers,  attracted  to  this  part  of 
the  country  by  its  climate  and  its  diversified  natural  re¬ 
sources,  have  an  equally  deep  interest  in  having  the  public 
lands  open  to  development  upon  just  and  equal  terms  that 
will  assure  the  speedy  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  country. 
It  is  only  by  development  and  use  that  the  land  can  be  set¬ 
tled  and  improved  and  towns,  cities,  and  Commonwealths 
built  up.  Any  policy,  therefore,  that  would  seal  up  or  un¬ 
necessarily  retard  the  use  of  nature’s  wealth  not  only  would 
be  of  no  benefit  to  the  present  or  to  future  generations,  but 
would  be  a  positive  injury  to  both.  Full  and  free  develop- 


1 12 


CONSERVATION  OF 


ment  under  wise  and  effectual  regulation  against  the  abuses 
of  monopoly  is  the  true  policy  for  this  country. 

Government  Ownership  Opposed 

We  are  opposed  to  the  plan  of  government  ownership 
and  operation,  either  directly  or  upon  the  landlord  and  ten¬ 
ant  system.  It  would  be  wasteful,  and  sooner  or  later 
would  lead  to  favoritism  in  leasing  and  to  corruption  in  the 
public  service.  It  would  tend  to  block  the  development  of 
the  country  without  any  compensating  advantage.  The 
tenant  of  the  coal  mine,  for  example,  would  naturally  take 
out  the  coal  easiest  to  mine;  that  is,  in  mining  parlance,  he 
would  rob  the  mine;  he  would  be  less  careful  in  other  re¬ 
spects  in  working  it,  and  the  result  would  be  waste  instead 
of  conservation.  An  elaborate  system  of  government  super¬ 
vision  might,  to  some  extent,  prevent  such  wasteful  opera¬ 
tion,  but  in  that  case  the  Government  would  practically 
have  to  go  into  the  coal-mining  business. 

Under  the  government  ownership  or  landlord  and  ten¬ 
ant  plan  it  is  proposed  to  charge  an  annual  rental  or  royalty, 
which  is  to  go  into  the  Government  Treasury.  As  these 
public  lands  are  all  in  the  West,  including  Alaska,  this 
would  amount  to  a  discrimination  against  this  part  of  the 
country.  It  would  be  a  tax,  not  upon  the  people  of  the 
whole  country,  but  upon  the  people  of  the  West,  where 
these  natural  resources  are  situate,  and  who  are  largely  con¬ 
sumers  of  these  products.  Obviously  the  consumer  must 
bear  the  burden  of  such  rent  or  royalty.  If,  therefore,  a 
royalty  is  to  be  charged,  it  should  go  to  the  State  in  which 
the  water  power  is  situate.  Should  the  policy  of  charging  a 
royalty  on  water  power  be  adopted  by  the  older  States,  the 
revenue  arising  therefrom  will  not  go  into  the  Government 
Treasury,  but  will  be  kept  in  the  State  where  the  water  pow¬ 
er  is  found,  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  such  State.  We 
see  no  good  reason  why  the  newer  States  should  not  be  upon 
the  same  footing  in  this  respect  as  the  older  ones. 

Provision  of  State  Constitution 

Long  before  public  attention  throughout  the  country 
was  called  to  the  question  of  the  conservation  of  water 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


n  3 

powers  the  State  of  Washington  adopted  a  constitution 
which  contains  this  wise  provision: 

“The  use  of  the  waters  of  this  State  for  irrigation,  min¬ 
ing,  and  manufacturing  purposes  shall  be  deemed  a  public 
use.” 

This  brings  every  water  power  in  this  State  within  reach 
of  public  control. 

The  success  of  the  conservation  movement — that  is,  con¬ 
servation  with  use — will,  in  the  long  run,  depend  more  upon 
the  States  than  upon  the  General  Government,  because,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  the  people  of  a  State  are  better  fitted 
by  local  knowledge  and  experience  to  look  after  the  public 
interests  of  their  community  than  government  officials,  how¬ 
ever  honest  and  well  meaning,  in  Washington  City,  thou¬ 
sands  of  miles  away.  A  wise  cooperation  of  the  General 
Government  with  the  state  governments  will  produce  the  best 
results. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  making  the  General  Government  a 
perpetual  landlord  over  all  the  remaining  public  lands  con¬ 
taining  coal  or  controlling  water  power,  their  management 
to  be  directed  by  bureau  clerks  in  Washington,  thousands  of 
miles  away — a  system  certain  to  give  rise  to  wastefulness 
and  corruption — we  would  favor  the  sale  of  such  lands 
under  laws  which  reserve  the  right  to  regulate  the  price 
of  coal  and  water  power  and  in  that  way  protect  the  public 
from  imposition. 

Encouragement  to  Alaska 

Under  such  laws  and  local  laws  conceived  in  this  spirit, 
home-building  Americans  will  seek  Alaska  and,  with  those 
already  there,  do  what  the  pioneers  of  an  earlier  genera¬ 
tion  did  in  Oregon  and  Washington — build  up  two  great 
States  to  become  the  home  of  millions  of  contented,  self- 
reliant,  self-respecting,  and  prosperous  American  citizens. 
This  would  be  a  real  and  wise  conservation  with  use. 

No  American  territory  was  ever  hampered  by  such  vex¬ 
atious  and  obstructive  regulations  as  Alaska.  The  freedom 
which  was  considered  the  birthright  of  the  pioneer  in  other 
days  is  unceremoniously  denied  to  the  Alaskan.  The  bureau 
clerks  in  Washington  seem  to  have  a  strangle-hold  on  that 


CONSERVATION  OF 


114 

Territory.  It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  the 
Alaskans  are  building,  as  the  pioneers  of  the  West  have 
always  done,  for  the  future,  for  their  children  and  their 
children’s  children,  as  well  as  for  the  present,  and  are  per¬ 
fectly  willing  to  cooperate  with  the  Government  in  all  rea¬ 
sonable  measures  looking  to  the  conservation  of  our  natural 
resources,  a  conservation  with  use  which  regards  and  con¬ 
serves  the  interest  of  the  present  as  well  as  of  the  future 
and  robs  neither. 

Protect  Forests,  Home  Seekers,  Water  Sources 

Your  committee  favors  the  principle  of  forest  reserves, 
including  reservations  from  sale  of  public  forest  lands  where 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  sources  of  water  supply  or 
desirable  for  national  parks.  But  there  should  be  no  with¬ 
drawal  or  diminution  of  the  lands  granted  to  the  State  for 
the  support  of  the  public  schools.  Nor  should  lands  nat¬ 
urally  adapted  to  farming  be  withheld  from  the  settler 
and  home  seeker  to  be  included  in  a  forest  reserve. 

Outlines  Conservation  Policy 

This  subject  is  so  important  from  every  point  of  view, 
the  difficulty  of  treating  it  wisely  and  justly  is  so  great, 
and  there  is  so  much  danger  at  this  time  to  the  public 
interests  from  hasty,  passionate,  or  inconsiderate  action 
in  and  out  of  Congress,  that  it  seems  to  your  committee 
that  after  passing  an  act  empowering  the  President  to  make 
temporary  withdrawals  of  land  from  sale  pending  action  by 
Congress,  provision  should  be  made  for  the  appointment  of 
a  commission  of  able  and  experienced  men  to  investigate 
the  whole  subject  and  report  to  Congress  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment  a  basis  for  land  legislation  which,  while 
protecting  the  public  against  the  wasteful  use  of  our  nat¬ 
ural  resources  and  against  monopoly,  will  put  every  acre  of 
good  farming  land  at  the  service  of  the  settler  and  the 
home  builder,  not  as  a  tenant  of  the  Government,  but  as  an 
owner  in  fee  of  his  own  home,  and  which,  as  regards  coal 
and  water  power,  while  carefully  protecting  the  public 
against  imposition  and  unreasonable  prices,  will  encourage 
the  discovery,  opening,  and  working  of  coal  mines  and  the 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


1 15 

development  of  water  power,  a  policy  absolutely  essential 
to  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  these  western  communities 
and,  indeed,  to  the  prosperity  of  the  whole  country. 

The  reclamation  of  our  arid  lands  by  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment  is  a  public  service  of  the  first  importance  and  de¬ 
serves  the  hearty  support  of  citizens  in  every  part  of  the 
country. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Thomas  Burke,  Chairman. 

Concurred  in  by — 

M.  A  Matthews. 

John  H.  McGraw. 

W.  D.  Wood. 

C.  H.  Hanford. 

Unanimously  adopted  by  Seattle  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
March  22,  1910. 

C.  B.  Y  an  dell,  Secretary. 

Congressional  Record.  45:  8509-30.  June  20,  1910. 

William  E.  Borah. 

I  believe  in  the  regulation  and  control  of  power  plants 
for  the  development  of  our  power  sites,  and  the  only  ques¬ 
tion  which  I  desire  to  present  is  the  question  which  sov¬ 
ereignty  shall  do  the  work,  whether  it  shall  be  done  by  the 
Federal  Government  or  by  the  State  Government.  The  State 
alone,  in  my  judgment,  can  deal  properly  with  the  subject- 
matter  both  as  a  practical  proposition  and  as  a  legal  propo¬ 
sition. 

In  addition  to  the  legal  proposition  it  is  essentially  a 
local  matter.  It  is  one  of  those  things  which  belongs  pe¬ 
culiarly  to  the  locality  in  which  the  power  sites  are  physi¬ 
cally  located. 

In  England  and  at  common  law  the  bed  and  shores  of 
all  navigable  streams  were  vested  at  first  in  the  Crown, 
and  anciently  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  King  to  convey 
the  title  to  private  parties.  But  this  power  was  taken  away 
from  the  King  by  Magna  Charta,  and  it  now  rests  with 
Parliament.  The  sovereign  right  of  Parliament  with  refer- 


ii6 


CONSERVATION  OF 


ence  to  this  subject-matter  was  transferred  to  the  respective 
States  at  the  close  of  the  American  Revolution  and  the 
acquisition  of  independence  on  the  part  of  American  States. 

The  States  had  the  same  control,  the  same  authority, 
over  the  subject-matter,  the  beds  and  shores  of  the  navigable 
streams  and  the  water  as  had  Parliament  prior  to  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  States.  I  think  I  might  submit  here,  with¬ 
out  hazarding  a  successful  contradiction  or  any  contradiction 
that  the  States  have  never  transferred  any  part  or  parcel 
of  that  sovereignty  to  the  National  Government,  save  and 
except  the  right  to  control  the  streams  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  navigation.  Outside  and  except  the  proposition 
of  the  power  of  Congress  to  deal  with  the  subject  of  inter¬ 
state  commerce,  and  to  keep  the  streams  open  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  protecting  interstate  commerce,  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  has  no  control  over  the  streams  of  my 
State,  or  of  your  State,  or  of  the  beds  and  water  or  water 
courses  and  streams  in  the  respective  States.  When  Con¬ 
gress  has  kept  those  streams  open  and  usable  for  interstate 
purposes  in  the  way  of  commerce,  it  has  exhausted  its  power, 
and  in  undertaking  to  control  them  under  the  guise  of  regu¬ 
lating  commerce,  which  does  not  have  the  purpose  and 
legitimate  object  of  regulating  commerce,  is  to  undertake  to 
accomplish  under  the  guise  of  a  constitutional  provision 
that  which  does  not  legitimately  belong  to  the  power. 

I  do  not  mean  to  be  understood  that  I  am  opposed  to 
control  and  regulation;  I  am  specifically  in  favor  of  it. 
What  I  mean  to  say  is,  that  it  is  a  matter  which  belongs 
to  the  State,  which  the  State  alone  can  control,  that  it  is 
essentially  local,  and  should  be  placed  under  the  jurisdiction 
and  control  of  the  State.  As  I  propose  to  show  in  a  few 
moments,  the  State  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  repre¬ 
sent  has  devised  and  has  in  force  the  most  complete  and 
perfect  system  for  the  control  and  regulation  of  these  power 
sites  that  to  my  mind  could  be  conceived  of,  and  one  which 
could  not  be  invoked  or  utilized  by  the  National  Govern¬ 
ment,  for  the  reason  that  it  has  not  the  legal  power  to  deal 
with  the  subject-matter. 

The  National  Government  can  not  under  the  guise  of 
regulating  commerce  effect  objects  and  purposes  not  author- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


ii  7 


ized  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Justice 
Marshall  said: 

Should  Congress,  under  the  pretext  of  executing  its  powers, 
pass  laws  for  the  accomplishment  of  objects  not  intrusted  to  the 
Government,  it  would  become  the  painful  duty  of  this  tribunal, 
should  a  case  requiring  such  a  decision  come  before  it,  to  say 
that  such  an  act  was  not  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  modern  idea  that  the  United  States  can  hold  its 
public  lands  and  property  as  the  monarchs  of  Europe  may 
do  is  foreign  to  our  theory  of  government.  In  the  case 
of  Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee  the  court  said: 

The  United  States  do  not  and  can  not  hold  property  as  mon¬ 
archs  may  for  private  personal  uses.  All  the  property  and  re¬ 
serves  of  the  United  States  must  be  held  and  applied  as  the  taxes, 
duties,  imposts,  and  excises  must  be  laid  and  collected  to  pay  the 
debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defense  and  general  welfare  of 
the  United  States. 

This  power  (to  regulate  commerce),  which  comprehends 
the  use  of  and  passage  over  the  navigable  waters  of  the 
several  States,  does  by  no  means  impair  the  right  of  the  state 
government  to  legislate  upon  all  subjects  of  internal  police 
within  its  territorial  limits  which  is  not  forbidden  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  even  though  such  legisla¬ 
tion  may  indirectly  and  remotely  affect  commerce,  provided 
it  does  not  interfere  with  the  regulations  of  commerce  upon 
the  same  subject.  *  *  *  Much  less  can  that  power  impair 
the  right  of  state  governments  to  legislate  in  such  manner 
as  in  their  wisdom  may  seem  best  over  the  public  property  of  the 
State  and  to  regulate  the  use  of  the  same  where  such  regulations 
do  not  interfere  with  free  navigation  of  the  zvaters  of  the  State 
for  commercial  intercourse.  *  *  *  The  grant  to  regulate  com¬ 
merce  contains  no  cession,  either  expressed  or  implied,  of  ter¬ 
ritory  or  of  public  or  private  property. 

Palmer  v.  Com.  (3  McLean,  226)  : 

A  dam  may  be  thrown  over  the  river,  provided  a  lock  is  so 
constructed  as  to  permit  boats  to  pass  with  little  or  no  delay. 

A  State,  by  virtue  of  its  sovereignty,  may  exercise  certain 
rights  over  its  navigable  waters,  subject,  however,  to  the  para¬ 
mount  power  in  Congress  to  regulate  commerce.  *  *  *  In  regard 
to  the  exercise  of  this  power  by  the  State,  there  is  no  other  limit 
than  boundaries  of  the  federal  power. 

United  States  v.  Bridge  Company  (6  McLean,  517),  by 
Judge  McLean: 

This  action  was  upon  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  pre¬ 
vent  a  company  from  constructing  a  bridge  over  the 


1 18 


CONSERVATION  OF 


Mississippi  River  under  the  authority  of  an  act  of  the 
Illinois  legislature. 

The  points  decided  were — 

The  State  may  use  the  navigable  rivers  and  construct 
bridges  over  the  same,  if  in  so  doing  interstate  commerce  is 
not  interfered  with. 

•When  Congress  has  navigated  commerce — kept  the 
streams  free  for  navigation — it  has  exhausted  its  power  over 
the  rivers  and  streams  in  a  State. 

Within  the  limits  of  a  State  Congress  can,  in  regard  to  the 
disposition  of  the  public  lands  and  their  protection,  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations,  but  beyond  this  it  can  exercise 
no  other  acts  of  sovereignty  which  it  may  not  exercise  in 
common  over  the  lands  of  individuals. 

The  proprietorship  of  lands  in  a  State  by  the  General  Govern¬ 
ment  can  not,  it  would  seem,  enlarge  its  sovereignty  or  restrict 
the  sovereignty  of  the  State. 

The  Government  is  simply  a  proprietor,  with  the  right  of 
control  and  sale  of  its  own  holdings. 

I  submit  that,  out  of  the  wisdom  of  these  old  pioneers, 
came  the  first  great  conservation  principle;  and  no  one 
connected  with  the  fight  has  ever  added  anything  either  to 
the  wisdom  or  to  the  practical  proposition  involved  in  the- 
statesmanlike  theories  of  those  old  men. 

The  United  States  Government  has,  however,  recognized, 
both  by  acquiescence  and  by  statute,  the  right  of  a  settler 
to  appropriate  the  waters  flowing  over  the  public  lands,  and 
this  right  is  valid  both  against  the  Government  and  any 
subsequent  grantee  of  the  Government. 

One  of  these  statutes  is  found  in  the  desert-land  act  of 
1877  and  has  not  been  given  sufficient  consideration.  This 
statute  provides — and  I  ask  my  friend  from  Nevada  to 
listen — 

That  the  right  to  the  use  of  water  by  the  person  so  conducting 
the  same  on  any  tract  of  desert  land  of  640  acres  shall  depend  upon 
bona  fide  prior  appropriation,  and  such  right  shall  not  exceed  the 
amount  of  water  actually  appropriated  and  necessarily  used  for 
the  purposes  of  irrigation  and  reclamation;  and  all  surplus  water 
over  and  above  such  actual  appropriation  and  use,  together  with 
the  waters  of  all  lakes,  rivers,  and  other  sources  of  water  supply 
upon  the  public  land  and  not  navigable  shall  remain  and  be  held 
free  for  the  appropriation  and  use  of  the  public  for  irrigation, 
mining,  and  manufacturing  purposes,  subject  to  existing  rights. 

Mr.  President,  under  that  statute  what  riparian  right  has 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


119 

the  National  Government  by  reason  of  owning  the  public 
land?  What  right  has  the  National  Government  to  ask 
that  the  streams  which  flow  by  public  land  shall  continue  to 
flow  there  as  they  were  wont  to  flow? 

Long  ago,  back  in  1866,  followed  by  the  act  of  1870 
and  by  the  act  of  1877,  the  United  States  Government 
abandoned,  in  my  judgment,  in  the  arid-landed  States  the 
doctrine  of  the  common  law,  and  declared  that  the  doctrine 
of  riparian  rights  should  hold  no  longer,  and  that  all  water 
flowing  upon  the  public  domain  controlled  by  lakes  and 
rivers  and  situated  upon  the  public  domain  should  be  open 
to  appropriation;  and  the  result  of  it  was  that  the  doctrine 
of  riparian  rights  ceased  to  be  a  doctrine  even  of  the  Na¬ 
tional  Government  in  those  States  where  prior  appropriation 
was  necessary  to  use  the  water. 

This  statute  has  received  a  very  clear  and  conclusive 
construction  by  a  decision  rendered  by  Judge  King,  of  the 
supreme  court  of  Oregon,  in  the  case  of  Hough  v.  Porter. 
This  statute  has  also  been  construed  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

Those  of  us  who  are  familiar  with  the  Colorado-Kansas 
case — and  we  all  are,  especially  those  of  the  West — know 
that  Judge  Brewer,  in  that  very  able  opinion,  declared  that 
it  was  within  the  sovereign  power  of  the  State  to  fix  the 
rule  for  the  use  of  waters  within  the  State,  and  that  whether 
it  should  be  riparian  rights  or  prior  appropriation  was  a 
matter  for  the  State  to  determine.  The  court  also  laid 
down  the  doctrine  that  the  Government  was  simply  a  pro¬ 
prietor  and  that  as  the  owner  of  land  within  a  State  was 
the  proprietor  the  same  as  any  other  proprietor. 

I  submit,  if  that  be  true,  if  it  be  true  that  the  State  of 
Idaho  may  fix  the  rule  as  to  prior  appropriation  and  riparian 
rights,  and  if  it  be  true  that  the  United  States  Government 
is  simply  holding  the  land  as  a  proprietor,  then  what  riparian 
rights  has  the  Government  by  virtue  of  owning  public  land 
within  a  State? 

In  the  case  of  Kansas  v.  Colorado,  to  which  I  have  re¬ 
ferred,1  the  syllabi  reads  as  follows: 

While  Congress  has  general  legislative  jurisdiction  over  the 
Territories  and  may  control  the  flow  of  waters  in  their  streams, 
it  has  no  power  to  control  a  like  flow  within  the  limits  of  a  State, 


120 


CONSERVATION  OF 


except  to  preserve  or  improve  the  navigability  of  the  stream;  that 
the  full  control  over  these  waters  is  subject  to  the  exception  above 
named,  vested  in  the  State. 

In  the  body  of  the  opinion  the  court  says: 

It  (the  State)  may  determine  for  itself  whether  the  common- 
law  rule,  in  respect  to  riparian  rights  or  the  doctrine  which  ob¬ 
tains  in  the  arid  regions  of  the  West  of  the  appropriation  of  wa¬ 
ters  for  the  purpose  of  irrigation,  shall  control.  Congress  can 
not  enforce  either  rule  upon  any  State. 


Congressional  Record.  46:  4016-20.  March  2,  1911. 

Edward  T.  Taylor. 

I  can  not  resist  the  feeling  that  some  of  these  days  the 
American  people  are  going  to  wake  up  to  the  fact  that  these 
forest  reserves  are  a  pretty  expensive  luxury,  the  way  they 
are  being  administered. 

When  this  forest-reserve  policy  was  first  started,  the 
country  was  assured  that  after  four  or  five  years  the  Forest 
Service  would  not  only  be  self-supporting,  but  would  make 
large  contributions  to  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 
In  1900  Congress  appropriated  $48,520;  in  1901  the  appropria¬ 
tion  was  doubled;  in  1902  that  appropriation  was  again 
doubled,  and  since  that  year  the  appropriations  have  been 
as  follows: 


1903  .  $291,860 

1904  .  366,864 

1905  545,282 

1906  .  1,642,000 

1907  .  2,757,000 

1908  .  2,304,000 

1909  .  3,989,000 

1910  .  4,682,000 

1911  .  5,051,000 


And  we  are  now  in  this  and  other  bills  appropriating 
over  $7,000,000  for  the  Forest  Service  for  1912,  $900,000 
of  which  is  for  the  deficiency,  which  the  service  expended 
last  year  over  and  above  the  appropriations  allowed  them 
by  law.  I  realize  that  that  excess  expenditure  was,  in  view 
of  the  forest  fires,  humane,  and  so  far  as  I  know,  necessary; 
and  I  have  not  opposed  it.  But  in  view  of  the  former  rep- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


1 2  I 


reservations  that  this  service  was  to  be  self-supporting  and 
produce  a  revenue  to  the  Government,  it  does  seem  to  me 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  call  the  situation  to  the  attention  of 
the  public  and  inquire  when  this  doubling-up  process  is 
going  to  stop.  Personally,  I  do  not  see  any  indications 
of  any  cessation  in  this  constant  increase. 

I  do  not  know  how  many  employees  there  are  in  that 
service,  and  I  doubt  if  anyone  else  knows;  but  it  has  been 
estimated  at  all  the  way  from  four  to  twelve  thousand.  It 
was  stated  in  the  Senate  yesterday  by  the  senior  Senator 
from  Wyoming  in  the  debate  on  this  bill  that  the  former 
head  of  the  Forest  Service  in  an  address  before  the  Geo¬ 
graphic  Society  stated  that  it  would  require  the  employment 
of  about  118,000  to  120,000  men  to  properly  conserve  the 
forests  in  this  country  when  this  forest  system  reaches  its 
real  development.  So  that,  if  the  present  number  of  men 
employed — whatever  it  is — costs  this  Government  $7,000,000 
a  year,  we  can  roughly  approximate  what  120,000  men  would 
cost. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  not  at  this  late  hour  refer 
even  thus  briefly  to  this  Forest  Service  question  were  it  not 
for  the  gigantic  and  astounding  forest-service  policy  that 
this  country  is  now  entering  upon.  I  refer  to  the  passage  of 
the  Weeks  Appalachian  bill,  which  was  signed  by  the  Presi¬ 
dent  to-day.  I  opposed  and  voted  against  that  measure 
when  it  passed  this  House.  Now  that  it  is  a  law,  there  is 
probably  no  use  of  discussing  it.  But  to  me  that  bill  is 
one  of  the  most  amazing  outrages  that  has  ever  been  perpe¬ 
trated  upon  the  American  people.  In  the  first  place,  I  do 
not  believe  that  this  Government  has  any  constitutional  right 
to  tax  the  people  of  this  whole  country  for  the  purpose  of 
buying  possibly  upward  of  75,000,000  acres  of  land,  which 
I  think  is  conceded  to  be  utterly  worthless  for  any  practical 
purpose,  and  paying  a  high  price  for  it  for  the  mere  purpose 
of  putting  it  into  a  forest  reserve.  It  is  stated  that  that  bill 
only  authorizes  an  immediate  expenditure  of  something  like 
$11,000,000.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  under  its  provisions,  if  they 
are  carried  out  as  its  supporters  undoubtedly  hope  and  in¬ 
tend,  it  will,  or  may,  cost  this  Government  $300,000,000; 
and  if  this  Appalachian  and  White  Mountain  forest  reserve 


122 


CONSERVATION  OF 


is  going  to  be  administered  over,  after  its  purchase,  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  present  forest  reserves  are,  that  one 
measure  will  cost  this  Government  more  money  than  the 
Panama  Canal;  and  I  can  not  see  where  anybody  is  going 
to  be  benefited,  excepting  the  real-estate  agents  and  the  men 
who  are  going  to  sell  these  waste  lands  to  Uncle  Sam  and 
the  people  who  are  going  to  get  the  jobs. 

To  show  that  I  am  not  at  all  alone  in  my  views,  as  well 
as  to  also  convey  to  Congress  and  to  the  public  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  the  West  upon  this  subject,  I  ask  leave  to  extend 
my  remarks  in  the  Record  by  incorporating  three  articles 
appearing  on  the  editorial  page  of  last  Sunday’s  Rocky 
Mountain  News,  of  Denver,  which  I  have  just  received. 

[Statement  by  Hon.  Edward  Keating ] 

Uncle  Sam  has  been  in  the  land  business  for  more  than 
a  centun^,  and  the  only  point  on  which  the  advocates  of 
National  control  of  our  natural  resources  seem  to  be  able 
to  agree  is  that  up  to  the  year  191 1  he  has  made  a  flat  failure 
of  the  undertaking. 

Mr.  Pinchot’s  entire  program  is  predicated  on  the  propo¬ 
sition  that  successive  Secretaries  of  the  Interior  and  Com¬ 
missioners  of  the  General  Land  Office  have  permitted  “the 
interests’’  to  make  ducks  and  drakes  of  the  public  domain; 
and  Mr.  Ballinger,  smarting  under  Mr.  Pinchot’s  castiga¬ 
tions,  admits  that  his  predecessors  have  been  culpable  or 
careless,  or  both,  and  as  proof  of  his  own  good  intentions 
comes  forward  with  a  set  of  rules  and  regulations  to  govern 
the  disposition  of  the  Nation’s  lands  which  are  so  long  and 
so  complicated  that  a  Philadelphia  lawyer  would  have  brain 
fag  before  he  comprehended  their  meaning. 

But  however  vigilant  Mr.  Pinchot  may  be  and  however 
long  and  wise  Mr.  Ballinger’s  regulations  may  be,  the  sys¬ 
tem  the  gentlemen  advocate  will  always  retain  a  fatal  defect. 
It  must  in  the  very  nature  of  things  be  a  bureaucracy, 
clothed  with  powers  which  are  repugnant  to  all  our  theories 
of  republican  government. 

This  bureaucracy — responsible  to  no  one  except  the  ap¬ 
pointing  power  and  protected  against  that  by  the  machinery 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


123 


of  civil  service — will  cling  tenaciously  to  the  power  it  has 
and  constantly  reach  out  for  more. 

For  that  is  the  nature  of  bureaucracies,  whether  their 
headquarters  are  in  St.  Petersburg  or  in  Washington. 

This  particular  bureaucracy  which  the  advocates  of  Na¬ 
tional  control  of  our  natural  resources  are  endeavoring  to 
strengthen  and  perpetuate  would  hold  the  public  domain 
'as  a  vast  estate,  occupied  by  such  tenants  as  would  conform 
to  the  rules  and  regulations  and  administered  by  an  army 
of  bureaucrats  of  high  and  low  degree.  They  would  trans¬ 
form  Uncle  Sam  into  a  sort  of  glorified  landlord  and  our 
public  domain  into  “crown  lands.”  At  its  best  this  system 
would  produce  a  beneficent  despotism,  and  at  its  worst  it 
would  make  Ireland’s  most  appalling  examples  of  absentee 
landlordism  seem  commonplace. 

Those  of  us  who  are  opposed  to  this  bureaucratic  ad¬ 
ministration  of  the  public  domain  hold  that  LTncle  Sam 
should  go  out  of  the  land  business  and  that  the  public  do¬ 
main  should  be  turned  over  to  the  various  States  in  which 
it  is  located,  under  such  regulations  as  may  be  agreed  upon 
by  the  National  and  State  Governments. 

We  all  want  to  preserve  our  forests.  Of  course  the  first 
logical  step  in  that  direction  would  be  the  repeal  of  the 
tariff  which  places  a  premium  on  the  destruction  of  our 
forests.  I  trust  the  next  Congress  may  be  induced  to  take 
that  step,  and  I  know  that  the  genuine  conservationists  of 
the  West  will  do  all  in  their  power  to  help  along  the  good 
work.  Will  our  friends  Pinchot  and  Ballinger  and  other 
advocates  of  Federal  control  lend  their  aid?  I  fear  not. 
In  so  far  as  the  actual  work  of  planting  trees  and  patrolling 
and  safeguarding  the  forests  is  concerned,  the  States  are  in 
a  much  better  position  to  perform  it  than  is  the  National 
Government.  Under  State  control  there  would  be  less  fric¬ 
tion  between  the  rangers  and  the  settlers,  but  in  case  of 
conflict  either  side  could  secure  speedy  justice  at  the  State 
capitol. 

While  the  water-power  trust,  of  which  we  heard  so  much 
a  year  or  two  ago,  seems  to  have  been  consigned  to  the 
limbo  of  things  imagined  but  never  realized,  the  problem 
of  what  to  do  with  our  water  power  remains.  I  believe 


124 


CONSERVATION  OF 


the  solution  lies  not  in  the  National  Government’s  attempt 
to  collect  rentals  from  some  of  the  plants,  but  in  the  State’s 
power  to  tax  and  regulate  all  the  plants.  These  regulations 
would,  of  course,  include  the  fixing  of  rates.  With  such 
power  exercised  by  the  State,  I  do  not  think  we  would  have 
any  occasion  to  worry  about  water-power  trusts. 

In  asking  the  question,  “What  shall  we  do  with  the  pub¬ 
lic  domain?”  I  believe  the  News  has  stated  the  most  im¬ 
portant  issue  now  before  the  people  of  the  West,  and  one 
which  will  hold  the  attention  of  the  Nation  in  the  next 
presidential  campaign. 

We  should  meet  it  squarely.  The  public  mind  has  been 
prepared  for  a  frank  discussion  of  the  problem.  The  people 
of  the  West  should  agree  upon  a  program,  and  that  program 
should  be  pressed  on  the  attention  of  our  friends  of  the 
East  and  South  with  all  the  vigor  which  the  West  has  dis¬ 
played  in  other  crises  in  its  history. 

[ Statement  by  Hon.  E.  M.  Ammons ] 

The  public  lands  should  be  turned  over  to  the  States 
wherein  they  lie  under  terms  just  and  equitable  to  both 
State  and  Nation,  with  restrictions  to  effectively  prevent 
monopoly  and  at  the  same  time  secure  the  greatest  possible 
settlement  and  development.  The  establishment  of  our 
present  land  board  provides  the  agency  for  handling  our 
lands  and  resources.  All  agricultural  and  grazing  lands 
should  be  freely  opened  to  entry  under  the  limit  of  a  home¬ 
stead  capacity.  Under  State  control  prospecting  would  be 
encouraged  and  mining  stimulated  in  sharp  contrast  to  the 
present  discouraging  conditions.  Water  for  power  pur¬ 
poses  would  be  made  available  that  the  people  might  have 
cheaper  light  in  their  homes,  cheaper  power  to  operate  the 
mines  and  mills  and  factories,  and  thus  we  would  stimulate 
the  manufacturing  of  our  products  at  home.  Under  State 
control  land  suitable  for  summer  homes  could  be  opened  to 
preemption  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  whether  resi¬ 
dents  of  the  State  or  not,  with  proper  restrictions  as  to 
residence  upon  the  land  and  improvements.  The  coal,  oil, 
stone,  and  clay  lands  could  be  sold  and  developed  and  our 
forest  lands  handled  in  harmony  with  our  other  resources 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


125 


and  under  laws  suitable  to  our  local  conditions.  Pending 
settlement  and  sale,  the  unoccupied  lands  could  be  rented 
and  the  receipts  from  this  source,  which  would  be  large, 
could  be  applied  to  the  building  of  good  roads,  which  would 
help  to  make  these  same  lands  accessible,  and  consequently 
more  valuable. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Federal  Government  is  not  making  ex¬ 
penses  in  the  administration  of  these  lands,  it  should  be 
glad  to  cede  them  outright  to  the  States.  If  the  sentiment 
created  by  the  press  agency  of  the  Forest  Service  is  so 
strong  that  this  can  not  be  done,  then  they  should  be  sold 
to  the  States  at  a  minimum  price,  to  be  paid  for  as  they 
are  disposed  of  by  the  States.  Agricultural  and  grazing 
land  should  not  be  charged  for,  the  usual  fees  being  paid 
to  the  State  for  administration.  The  surplus,  after  paying 
the  Government  price,  should  go  to  the  construction  of  pub¬ 
lic  highways  and  the  completion  of  reclamation  projects. 

If  such  a  plan  was  carried  out  it  would  result  in  one 
jurisdiction  and  uniform  laws  over  all  the  territory  in  the 
State;  would  enormously  increase  taxable  property,  provide 
for  the  construction  of  good  roads,  open  new  lands  to 
settlement  and  encourage  greater  production  for  market. 
We  would  thus  have  the  same  right  that  was  enjoyed  by 
the  Eastern  States  of  utilizing  our  natural  resources  to  build 
our  State.  We  would  have  the  right  to  impose  local  taxes 
upon  all  property  alike  and  expend  the  resulting  revenues 
in  a  manner  most  advantageous  to  the  welfare  of  our  cit¬ 
izens.  By  increasing  our  population  we  would  have  more 
and  better  schools  and  thus  improve  social  conditions.  We 
would  be  able  to  establish  public  parks  which,  with  our 
system  of  highways,  would  not  only  furnish  places  of  recrea-. 
tion  for  our  own  people,  but  would  attract  the  tourist  trade 
of  the  world.  The  opening  of  our  lands  and  resources  to 
entry  and  use  would  stimulate  settlement  and  development 
to  a  point  unknown  before,  and  the  people  of  every  section 
of  the  State  would  be  guaranteed  the  right  of  local  self- 
government. 

The  people  of  Colorado  have  a  better  knowledge  of  the 
resources  of  this  State  than  any  bureau  at  Washington  could 
possibly  have.  We  have  a  more  direct  interest  in  the  preser- 


126 


CONSERVATION  OF 


vation  and  development  of  these  resources  and  are  best  able 
to  give  the  proper  administration.  The  receipts  from  the 
use  and  sale  of  the  public  lands  would  be  sufficient  for  their 
care,  the  establishment  of  a  system  of  parks  and  the  con¬ 
struction  of  all  needed  highways  and  the  addition  of  this  prop¬ 
erty  to  the  tax  rolls  would  help  build  and  support  our  grow¬ 
ing  educational  and  other  State  institutions. 

It  will  be  argued  that  the  States  have  never  cared  for 
these  lands  and  resources  as  they  should,  but  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  States  did  not  own  these  lands,  re¬ 
ceived  no  revenue  from  them,  and  had  no  control  over  them 
whatever.  If  there  has  been  a  tendency  toward  monopoly 
it  has  been  the  fault  of  Federal  laws  and  administration, 
not  the  State. 

The  public-land  question  overshadows  all  others  in  im¬ 
portance  to  the  West.  Upon  its  solution  depends  whether 
our  industrial  life  shall  continue  to  be  hampered  by  dis¬ 
couragements  and  prevention,  or  whether,  by  unlocking  our 
lands  and  resources  to  the  people,  it  shall  be  quickened  into 
new  vitality. 

As  the  West  prospers  the  East  is  enriched.  At  least,  an 
“enlightened  selfishness”  should  inspire  the  country  to  give 
us  a  “square  deal.” 


Congressional  Record.  48:  Appendix  3-6.  December  9,  1911. 

Speech  of  Gov.  John  F.  Shafroth,  of  Colorado,  at  the  Trans- 

Mississippi  Commercial  Congress  at  Kansas  City,  Mo., 

November  15,  1911. 

It  has  never  been  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  make 
money  out  of  its  lands.  The  sums  charged  are  presumed  to 
amount  to  very  little  more  than  sufficient  to  cover  the  ex¬ 
penses  of  properly  regulating  the  disposition  of  the  same. 

It  has  been  well  recognized  in  all  countries  that  they  must 
have  lands  for  colonization;  for  relieving  the  congested  popu¬ 
lation  of  their  cities,  so  as  to  make  better  and  more  prosper¬ 
ous  citizens. 

The  people  of  the  original  States  obtained  title  to  their 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


127 


lands  at  insignificant  prices,  the  consideration  named  being  a 
penny  or  a  peppercorn. 

Now  it  is  proposed,  by  bills  introduced  in  Congress  and 
advocated  by  the  followers  of  Mr.  Pinchot,  to  change  this 
policy,  to  impose  royalties  upon  powers  generated  by  falling 
water  and  to  lease  the  oil  and  phosphate  lands  and  the  coal 
and  metalliferous  mines  upon  a  rental  basis  payable  to  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States.  No  other  States  have  had 
their  natural  resources  taxed  by  the  National  Government, 
and  we  deem  it  is  unfair  that  the  people  of  the  States  which 
had  all  the  products  of  their  natural  resources  for  them¬ 
selves  should  now  require,  through  their  Senators  and  Repre¬ 
sentatives,  these  less-favored  States  in  the  West  to  not  only 
undertake  the  development  of  the  natural  resources  of  these 
States  but  to  pay  into  the  Federal  Treasury  a  tax  upon  the 
very  development  thereof. 

What  does  the  leasing  of  the  natural  resources  of  the 
mountain  States  mean?  It  means  perpetual  ownership  in  the 
National  Government,  and  that  means  exemption  from  taxa¬ 
tion  forever. 

Perpetual  exemption  from  taxation  of  vast  territory  in  a 
State  is  almost  destructive  of  the  development  of  that  State. 
It  is  an  injustice  which  it  seems  to  me  every  fair-minded  per¬ 
son  must  recognize.  The  State  must  maintain  government 
for  State,  county,  and  school  purposes  over  all  the  lands 
within  its  borders,  whether  reserved  or  not. 

In  the  West  the  taxes  upon  land  for  a  period  of  30  years, 
including  reasonable  interest  upon  each  yearly  payment, 
amount  to  the  value  of  the  land.  Therefore,  when  the  lands 
privately  owned  must  pay  all  of  the  taxes  for  State, 
county,  and  school  purposes  it  is  equivalent  to  them  paying 
every  30  years,  in  addition  to  their  just  taxes,  an  amount 
equal  to  the  value  of  the  public  lands.  Thus  the  people  of 
these  States  must  pay  for  these  public  lands  every  30  years 
and  yet  never  own  a  foot  of  the  same.  I-s  that  right;  is  it 
just;  is  it  the  way  a  parent  would  treat  a  child?  Is  it  a 
compliance  with  the  enabling  acts,  which  provide  that  each 
State'is  “admitted  into  the  Union  upon  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever”? 

This  new  policy  would  not  only  deprive  the  States  of  the 


128 


CONSERVATION  OF 


means  of  raising-  the  necessary  revenues  to  establish  and 
maintain  good  government,  but  in  addition  to  that  injustice 
the  advocates  thereof  propose  to  make  revenue  for  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Treasury  by  taxing  the  natural  resources  of  the  West. 
By  so  doing  they  propose  to  make  the  Mountain  States  pay 
an  undue  proportion  of  the  burdens  of  the  National  Govern¬ 
ment. 

It  has  been  estimated  by  the  Geological  Survey  at  Wash¬ 
ington  that  there  are  contained  within  the  boundaries  of  the 
State  of  Colorado  371,000,000,000  tons  of  coal.  More  than 
three-fourths  of  this  coal  is  upon  the  public  domain.  If  a 
rental  of  10  cents  a  ton  is  to  be  imposed  upon  that  natural 
resource  of  the  State  of  Colorado  it  would  mean  ultimately 
that  the  citizens  of  our  State  must  contribute  $27,000,000,000 
to  the  Federal  Treasury.  This  tax  is  advocated  on  the 
ground  that  it  will  prevent  waste.  According  to  this 
geological  report,  Colorado  alone  has  sufficient  coal  to  sup¬ 
ply  the  world,  at  the  present  rate  of  consumption  (of  about 
one  and  a  quarter  billion  tons  per  annum),  for  300  years. 
Although  my  State  is  now  mining  11,000,000  tons  of  coal  a 
year,  yet  our  production  for  50  years  has  exhausted  only  one- 
half  of  1  per  cent  of  our  coal  deposits. 

It  has  been  estimated  by  the  authorities  at  Washington 
that  from  1,000,000  to  2,117,000  horsepower  can  be  generated 
from  falling  water  in  the  State  of  Colorado.  If  the  Govern¬ 
ment  is  to  charge  $1  per  horsepower  as  a  rental  for  a  tempo¬ 
rary  right  of  way  for  transmission  lines,  and  conducting  that 
water  on  Government  land  until  it  attains  a  height  sufficient 
to  generate  power,  it  will  mean,  when  this  power  is  fully 
developed,  a  rental  to  the  National  Government  from  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  Colorado  of  from  $1,000,000  to  $2,117,000  a  year. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  every  horsepower  generated 
by  falling  water  saves  the  burning  on  the  average  of  21 
tons  of  coal  each  year. 

If  royalties  are  to  be  paid  for  the  extraction  of  the 
precious  and  base  metals,  other  millions  will  be  turned  into 
the  Federal  Treasury,  from  the  natural  resources  of  our 
State.  It  may  be  that  it  will  be  proposed,  as  is  done  in  the 
Forestry  Department  at  Washington,  that  one-fourth  of  the 
receipts  will  be  turned  over  to  the  State  treasury,  to  be  used 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


129 


only  for  certain  purposes  to  be  prescribed  by  the  Federal 
Government.  But  is  it  equal  or  fair  treatment  to  our  Com¬ 
monwealth  for  the  Government  to  impose  any  tax  whatever 
upon  our  natural  resources,  which  it  has  never  imposed  upon 
the  older  and  richer  States  of  the  Union?  It  must  be  re¬ 
membered  that  the  act  of  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  im¬ 
posing  duties  upon  goods  shipped  to  the  13  colonies,  against 
which  our  forefathers  rebelled,  provided  that  the  revenues 
derived  therefrom  should  be  expended  in  America  for  its 
protection  and  defense. 

All  taxes  upon  production  must  ultimately  be  paid  by  the 
,  consumer.  Yea  more,  such  policy  means  that  the  people 
will  have  to  pay  additional  prices  for  such  products  far  in 
excess  of  the  royalties  which  will  be  obtained  by  the  Na¬ 
tional  Government.  It  will  put  our  people  at  a  disadvantage 
in  the  struggle  for  industrial  supremacy. 

The  State  of  Colorado  pays  into  the  National  Treasury 
more  than  $5,000,000  a  year,  which  is  its  fair  proportion  of 
the  revenues  of  the  Government  collected  from  all  the  States 
of  the  Union.  But  the  Western  States  object  most  strenu¬ 
ously  to  paying  additional  millions,  the  effect  of  which  must 
be  to  retard  the  development  of  their  natural  resources.  It 
is  bad  enough  to  be  compelled  to  exempt  from  taxation, 
until  disposed  of,  the  15,000,000  acres  of  forest  reserves  and 
9,000,000  acres  of  coal  lands  of  the  public  domain  in  Colo¬ 
rado,  and  thereby  make  us  pay  an  equivalent  for  these  lands 
every  30  years  and  yet  never  own  a  foot  of  the  same.  But 
we  can  not,  in  addition  to  that,  consent  to  a  tax  upon  our 
natural  resources,  to  be  paid  into  the  Federal  Treasury. 

The  excuse  for  imposing  a  tax  and  terms  upon  the  water¬ 
power  plants  of  our  States  is  that  Congress  will  prevent 
monopoly,  whereas  the  State  governments  will  not;  that  they 
at  Washington  are  better  able  to  administer  local  affairs 
than  the  people  of  the  States  in  which  the  lands  and  the  re¬ 
sources  are  situate. 

It  has  been  my  good  fortune  to  represent  my  State  in 
Congress  for  nine  years,  and  I  and  all  other  Members  of 
Congress  know  that  it  is  more  difficult  to  pass  through 
the  United  States  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
an  act  which  will  prevent  monopoly  than  it  is  to  get  through 


130 


CONSERVATION  OF 


the  general  assemblies  of  the  various  States  the  same  char¬ 
acter  of  legislation. 

When  we  realize  that  the  National  Government  has  given 
away  in  43  different  railroad  'grants  lands  aggregating 
1 55,504,994  acres,  it  comes  with  poor  grace  from  the  Federal 
officers  to  say  that  they  can  conserve  and  administer  the 
lands  better  than  the  people  of  the  States  wherein  the  lands 
are  situate.  These  railroad  grants  comprise  an  area  equal 
to  that  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts, 
Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  Delaware,  West  Virginia,  and  Ohio  combined.  If  the 
Western  States  had  donated  to  railroads  one-tenth  of  such 
grants,  such  action  would  have  been  looked  upon  as  the  most 
horrible  example  of  waste  and  extravagance,  if  not  corrup¬ 
tion,  that  had  ever  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

Why  impose  upon  the  Western  States  a  rule  which  inter¬ 
feres  with  what  they  think  are  the  rights  belonging  to  the 
States : 

First.  Which  will  make  the  people  of  those  States,  by 
taxation  upon  their  own  land  for  government  over  all  the 
lands,  pay  for  these  reserves  every  30  years  without  owning 
any  of  the  same? 

Second.  Which,  in  addition  to  the  burdens  imposed  upon 
those  States  for  the  support  of  the  National  Government,  will 
compel  them  to  pay  millions  of  dollars  into  the  Federal 
Treasury  as  taxes  upon  their  natural  resources,  which  no 
other  States  have  been  required  to  do?  And 

Third.  Which  must  foist  upon  those  States  landlordism 
and  a  bureaucratic  control  of  these  great  reserves,  which 
policy  in  the  administration  of  government  has  always  prov¬ 
en  a  failure? 

Heed  the  advice  of  the  great  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
— let  our  Government  be  “a  National  Government  for  Nation¬ 
al  affairs  and  State  governments  for  State  affairs,”  and  then 
there  will  follow  a  development  of  the  resources  of  the 
Rocky  Mountain  region  which  will  be  the  marvel  and  wonder 
of  the  world. 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


13 1 


Independent.  68:  697-9.  March  31,  1910. 

Why  East  and  West  Differ  on  the  Conservation  Problem. 

Leslie  M.  Scott. 

The  purpose  of  this  article  is  to  suggest  that  the  Pinchot 
conservation  idea  of  Eastern  States  antagonizes  the  Far 
Western  idea  of  that  subject. 

In  the  East,  Pinchot  conservation  means  resistance  to 
private  greed  and  corporate  fraud  that  have  sought  to  de¬ 
spoil  and  waste  the  public  domain,  at  the  expense  of  the 
public. 

In  the  Far  West,  Pinchot  conservation  is  held  to  mean 
obstruction  of  settlement  and  public  progress  that  comes 
from  opening  of  new  lands. 

Far  Western  States,  like  Oregon  and  Washington,  which 
contain  the  largest  forest  areas  and  the  largest  water  powers 
in  the  United  States,  prefer  State  conservation  to  Pinchot 
or  National  conservation. 

In  the  Western  mind,  purchase  of  land  from  the  United 
States  at  $1.25  or  $2.50  an  acre  for  settlement  is  in  accord 
with  the  good  and  lawful  policy  of  the  Nation  and  should 
continue. 

More  than  one-fourth  the  land  of  Oregon — 16,221,000 
acres — is  locked  up  within  government  forest  reserves;  also 
more  than  one-fourth  the  land  of  Washington — 12,065,000 
acres.  The  Government  holds  other  large  slices  in  with¬ 
drawals  for  water  power  sites,  unopened  Indian  reserves 
and  irrigation  projects,  which  latter,  especially  in  Oregon, 
will  be  carried  forward,  goodness  knows  when.  The  South¬ 
ern  Pacific  Railroad  holds  in  Oregon,  as  a  big  reserve  of 
its  own,  2,000,000  acres  of  the  finest  land  in  the  State,  granted 
by  Congress  in  the  early  ’7 os,  and  refuses  to  sell.  Private 
and  corporate  timber  land  tracts  aggregate  many  million 
acres  more.  Five  wagon  road  companies  in  Oregon  own  im¬ 
mense  acres  of  Congressional-grant  land. 

In  brief,  out  of  61,000,000  acres  of  land  in  Oregon,  fully 
one-half,  if  not  more,  is  locked  up  from  settlement  and  much 
of  the  remaining  half  is  arid,  barren  and  bleak.  Much  of  the 
forest  reserve  land  could  be  opened  to  settlement  without 
wasting  timber  wealth,  for  a  large  part  of  it  has  few  or  no 


132 


CONSERVATION  OF 


trees  and  other  areas,  extending  down  to  the  base  of  the 
mountains  and  into  the  valley,  will  produce  more  wealth  with 
cows  and  potatoes  than  with  forests.  Vast  mountain  regions 
are  unfit  for  farming;  fit  only  for  forest.  These  conserved 
will  yield  the  people  timber  forever.  Pinchot  officials  say 
the  law  authorizes  homestead  settlement  on  government 
reserve  land  which  is  suitable  for  agricultural  use,  but  de¬ 
termination  of  this  matter  rests  with  Pinchot  officials,  and 
few  admissions  into  forest  reserve  land  are  desired  by  set¬ 
tlers,  under  conditions  that  prevail,  and  very  few  are  allowed. 

These  same  restrictions  exist  in  other  Western  States, 
but  the  effects  are  nowhere  more  glaring  than  in  Oregon. 
Here  Americans  organized  their  first  political  community 
on  the  Pacific  Coast  in  1843.  Yet  in  population  and  growth 
Oregon  is  last  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  States.  Its  aggregate 
area  barred  from  settlement  amounts  to  50,000  square  miles. 
'This  exceeds  the  total  area  of  the  State  of  New  York,  or 
Virginia,  or  Pennsylvania.  It  exceeds  the  combined  areas 
of  Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  New  Hampshire, 
Rhode  Island,  Delaware  and  New  Jersey.  It  almost  equals 
that  of  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Illinois  or  Iowa.  The  Nation 
has  bestowed  vast  parcels  of  Oregon  on  grabbers  and  selfish 
corporations;  and  now  “Pinchotism”  steps  in  to  lock  up  the 
rest  from  the  people’s  uses. 

The  taming  of  land  requires  patient,  hard  work  and  is  ac¬ 
companied  by  privation  and  stress  bordering  on  poverty. 
This  development  Oregon  and  Washington  need  and  de¬ 
mand.  Land  laws  allow  it,  but  officials  have  suspended  the 
laws  in  answer  to  a  clamor  in  the  East  from  persons  who 
know  little  and  care  less  about  Far  Western  efforts  for 
progress  and  upbuilding,  and  imagine  conservation  means 
simply  protection  of  the  public  domain  from  “spoliation.” 
Meanwhile,  tens  of  thousands  of  the  most  vigorous  citizens 
of  the  nation — of  the  type  that  “saved”  Oregon  and  Washing¬ 
ton — are  going  to  Canada  to  make  homes  under  the  British 
flag,  on  bleak  and  wind-swept  wastes.  This  land  they  obtain 
by  payment  of  a  nominal  sum  of  money — the  Canadian  Gov¬ 
ernment  virtually  gives  it  to  them,  but  they-  pay  a  higher 
price  than  any  gold  is  worth,  in  frontier  toil  and  suffering. 
The  laws  of  the  United  States  also  virtually  give  wild  land 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


133 


to  settlers  and  have  done  so  for  generations  in  all  the  States 
west  of  the  Alleghanies.  But  settlers  paid  for  it  amply  in 
hardships  and  so  they  must  still  do.  Yet  a  howl  goes  up  in 
Eastern  States  against  this  application  of  the  old  law,  from 
persons  who  do  not  understand.  Busy  officials  think  them¬ 
selves  called  upon  to  stop  this  settlement  of  the  public  do¬ 
main — this  “robbery  of  the  people,”  they  hear  it  called. 

The  real  robbery  was  perpetrated  by  land-grabbing  syndi¬ 
cates,  working  under  stupid  laws  of  Congress.  That  law¬ 
making  body  and  officials  in  the  national  capital  blazed  the 
way  to  the  Nation’s  land-fraud  scandal.  The  lien  land  law 
was  an  incubator  of  fraud.  Now  the  revolt  against  these 
abuses  has  rushed  to  the  other  extreme,  to  the  detriment  of 
Far  Western  States. 

The  people  of  Oregon  and  Washington  think  they  should 
have  something  to  say  about  control  of  their  forests,  lands 
and  streams.  Their  efforts  have  given  these  resources  most 
of  their  value,  and,  back  two  or  three  generations  ago,  their 
patriotism  snatched  this  country  from  Britain  to  the  United 
.  States. 

Further,  they  want  the  resources  of  their  States  admin¬ 
istered  in  accordance  with  local  needs.  In  the  office  of  the 
forest  service  in  Portland  is  an  army  of  “foreigners”  ruling 
over  their  lands  and  forests  and  streams.  In  other  words, 
the  great  resources  are  in  the  hands  of  men  who  have  no 
abiding  interest  in  the  growth  of  this  Northwest  country. 
They  wish  to  “hold  their  jobs,”  and  to  do  this  they  seek 
to  please  their  superiors  in  Washington  by  showing  how 
busy  they  are  preserving  the  public  domain  from  “spolia¬ 
tion.”  But  they  are  men  who  keep  the  stable  door  locked 
after  the  horse  is  stolen.  Big  frauds  have  taken  vast  areas 
of  the  public  domain,  but  on  this  account  are  settlers  to  be 
barred  out  of  the  remaining  land,  the  laws  suspended  and 
a  land  system  reversed  that  has  made  other  States  great  and 
wealthy  for  generations  past? 

The  people  of  the  State  of  New  York  own  1,641,523  acres 
of  forest  reserves  in  the  Adirondack  and  the  Catskill  moun¬ 
tains,  according  to  the  last  message  of  Governor  Hughes. 
The  Governor  urges  a  project  for  increasing  this  total  area 
to  4,000,000  acres,  and  for  developing  246,000  horse  power 


134 


CONSERVATION  OF 


from  waters  of  Hudson  River.  This  work  in  New  York  will 
be  State  conservation.  It  will  be  carried  on  for  lasting 
benefit  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Local  desires  and  needs 
will  be  conserved  along  with  the  resources.  The  people  of 
New  York,  of  course,  would  not  hand  this  business  over  to 
the  Pinchot  bureau  in  Washington;  they  have  their  own  ideas 
of  how  they  wish  their  resources  conserved  and  what  other 
things  are  to  be  safeguarded  along  with  them.  Resources 
of  Oregon  and  Washington,  and  other  Western  States,  how¬ 
ever,  are  managed  to  suit  non-resident  ideas  in  the  national 
capital.  They  are  taxed  to  pay  salaries  of  a  host  of  officials 
whose  purposes  are  elsewhere.  The  people  of  Oregon  and 
Washington,  unlike  those  of  other  States,  must  pay  toll 
for  the  use  of  their  own  streams  and  forests  to  the  people 
of  the  United  States  and  a  swarm  of  high-salaried  officials. 

Water  power  is  a  local  utility;  it  cannot  be  transmitted 
long  distances;  its  conservation  is  naturally  a  local  matter, 
and  the  laws  of  the  Nation  and  thfc  States  have  always  re¬ 
garded  it  as  a  subject  solely  of  State  supervision  and  legis¬ 
lation.  The  laws  of  Oregon  and  Washington  are  full}'-  . 
adequate  to  protect  the  public,  perhaps  more  so  than  those 
of  New  York  State  are  adequate  to  protect  the  public  of 
that  commonwealth.  Just  think  of  taxing  the  people  of  New 
York  to  pay  an  army  of  inspectors  and  agents  and  con- 
servers  in  the  national  capital  to  look  after  the  public  forests 
in  the  Adirondack  and  the  Catskill  mountains  and  the  water 
powers  of  the  Hudson  River! 

National  control  of  State  resources  is  assumption  of 
authority  unauthorized  by  the  Federal  Constitution  and  vio-. 
lation  of  the  laws  and  the  precedents  of  the  Nation.  This 
authority  is  not  contained  in  the  enumeration  of  powers  con¬ 
ferred  on  the  National  Government.  To  make  this  doubly 
sure,  two  amendments  to  the  national  Constitution  specifi¬ 
cally  declare:  “The  enumeration  in  the  Constitution  of  cer¬ 
tain  rights  shall  not  be  construed  to  construe  or  disparage 
others  retained  by  the  people”;  and  “The  powers  not  dele¬ 
gated  to  the  United  States  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively  or  to  the  people.” 

If  Pinchot  conservation  is  unconstitutional  it  is  also  con¬ 
trary  to  the  statutes  of  Congress.  Altho  the  public  domain  is 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


135 


supposed  to  be  administered  according  to  the  acts  of  Congress, 
the  Forest  Bureau  makes  rules  and  regulations  which  have 
all  the  force  of  such  acts  and  even  take  precedence  over 
them.  The  laws  guarantee  every  adult  citizen  the  privilege 
of  acquiring  tracts  of  the  public  domain  by  complying  with 
the  laws,  but  the  Pinchot  bureau  steps  in  and  suspends  the 
acts  of  Congress.  This  is  wrong  policy.  The  old  method 
should  be  restored.  Settlement  should  be  encouraged.  Tt 
has  built  up  every  State  in  the  Union.  Then  why  not  these 
Western  States?  The  “people”  would  not  lose.  Receipts 
from  land  sales  have  fully  indemnified  the  Nation  already. 
New  land  should  be  put  to  uses  of  wealth  production.  Cheap 
land,  sale  and  use  of  lands  containing  the  great  resources 
of  the  country  have  given  the  Nation  its  immense  develop¬ 
ment.  The  policy  has  increased  our  population  by  tens  of 
millions  and  our  wealth  by  hundreds  of  millions.  Yet 
Pinchot  conservation  tells  us  now  that  this  was  wrong;  in 
substance,  that  the  country  would  be  better  in  its  savage 
state.  We  are  led  to  believe  that  it  was  a  mistake  to  destroy 
the  original  fine  timber  that  stood  on  the  site  of  the  metrop¬ 
olis  of  Oregon. 


Literary  Digest.  41:  967-8.  November  26,  1910. 

Are  We  Conservation-Crazy? 

Many  Westerners  think  we  are,  says  a  writer  who  has 
figured  out  for  the  first  time,  as  far  as  we  have  seen,  the 
stupendous  area  oi  land  now  being  held  up  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment’s  conservation  policy.  It  appears  that  public  lands 
aggregating  more  than  the  combined  areas  of  Maine,  New 
Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode 
Island,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  both  Virginias,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Indiana,  and  Illi¬ 
nois  have  already  been  withdrawn  from  entry  in  the  United 
States,  according  to  the  figures  of  Mr.  Robert  D.  Heinl.  The 
conservation  movement,  he  declares,  in  Leslie's  Weekly 
(New  York),  has  closed  to  the  settler  nearly  300,000,000 
acres  of  the  public  domain.  The  writer  seems  to  sympathize 
with  Governor  Norris,  of  Montana,  whose  curt  explanation 


136 


CONSERVATION  OF 


of  conservation  enthusiasm  among  Easterners  is:  “They 
have  eaten  their  cake,  now  they  want  some  of  ours.”  In 
Mr.  Heinl’s  article  we  read: 

There  is  hardly  passing  comment  in  the  East  when  the  state¬ 
ment  is  made  that  virtually  half  of  great  Montana  is  closed, 
with  42,000,000  acres  withdrawn.  We  reckon  New  York  a  State 
of  magnificent  area,  but  in  the  West  over  30,000,000  acres — a 
larger  area  than  all  the  Empire  State — is  withheld  from  the 
people  of  Idaho.  That  is  57  per  cent  of  the  State.  Where 
before  she  had  50,000,000  acres  to  offer  new-comers,  Idaho  now 
has  13,000,000 — a  tract  barely  the  size  of  West  Virginia. 

From  the  following  table  the  reader  may  see  at  a  glance  the 
vast  areas  of  land  actually  withdrawn.  Nor  is  this  data  guess¬ 
work.  Every  figure  has  been  taken  from  official  statistics  fur¬ 
nished  by  the  General  Land  Office,  Department  of  the  Interior, 
at  Washington: 


LANDS  WITHDRAWN  BY  THE  GOVERNMENT 


(Figures  corrected  to  September,  1910.) 


Per  cent,  of  Total  Total  Acreage  With- 
Acreage  of  State  drawn  from  Public 


Withdrawn.  Use  in  State. 


Arizona  .  23  16,646,477 

Arkansas  .  9.5  3,189,781 

California .  32  -  32,030,838 

Colorado  .  33  21,557,915 

Florida  .  2.3  712,291 

Idaho  .  57  30,603,393 

Kansas  . 6  302,387 

Louisiana  .  1.4  414,720 

Michigan  . . . 4  163,373 

Minnesota  .  2.2  1,204,486 

Montana  .  45  42,009,943 

Nebraska  .  2.2  1,085,152 

Nevada  .  9.2  6,342,215 

New  Mexico  .  19.9  15,576,384 

North  Dakota  .  41.1  18,488,964 

Oklahoma . 2  108,880 

Oregon  .  20  18,076,473 

South  Dakota  .  9.7  4,805,127 

Utah .  27  14,309,006 

Washington  .  35  15,158,427 

Wyoming  .  30.9  24,548,145 


The  thousands  of  settlers  who  would  naturally  occupy  those 
enormous  tracts  of  land,  much  of  it  as  fine  as  any  in  the  United 
States,  are  excluded.  Largely  because  of  these  withdrawals, 
Canada,  in  nine  years  up  to  1909,  has  gained  nearly  400,000  im¬ 
migrants  from  our  Northwest.  At  the  present  time  100,000  good, 
sturdy  American  farmers  are  leaving  this  country  annually.  If 
the  land  had  not  been  withdrawn,  there  might  be  an  occasional 
farm  which  would  go  into  the  hands  of  undesirable  settlers,  but 
this  would  be  counterbalanced  over  and  again  by  bona-fide  resi¬ 
dents.  The  growth  of  population  in  the  several  Western  States 
in  question  is  being  dangerously  retarded. 

The  forest  reserves,  national  parks,  and  like  reservations  have 
been  permanently  withdrawn.  Other  portions  may  be  placed 
again  within  the  reach  of  the  people.  The  truth  is  that  there 
remains  in  the  public  domain  less  than  700,000,000  acres  that  are 
unappropriated  and  unreserved,  and,  as  has  been  pointed  out, 
only  a  small  per  cent  of  this  residue  is  attractive  or  ever  will  be 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


137 


attractive  to  settlers.  It  includes  the  Bad  Lands  of  the  West, 
the  irreclaimable  deserts,  barren  summits,  and  worthless  mountain 
country.  The  most  desirable  lands  that  have  not  passed  to  private 
ownership  are  now  held  up  by  the  Government.  Two-thirds  of 
the  land  remaining  in  the  public  domain  has  never  been  sur 
vested. 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

Pages  52-8.  Edwin  Lee  Norris. 

Now,  are  we  [Montana]  capable  of  passing  legislation  to 
preserve  our  water  resources?  I  think  we  are;  and  let  me 
tell  you  some  of  our  plans.  In  the  first  place,  the  water 
and  the  land,  during  the  territorial  days  of  each  State,  be¬ 
longed  to  the  Federal  Government.  When  the  State  was 
admitted,  the  lands  were  reserved  by  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment,  but  the  waters  flowing  in  the  streams  of  the  State 
passed  into  the  control  of  the  State.  You  heard  Senator 
Nelson,  an  able  lawyer,  refer  this  afternoon  to  the  fact  that 
that  was  the  law.  Now,  they  tell  us  that  you  cannot  trust 
the  States,  you  must  trust  the  Federal  Government;  and  yet 
I  listened  for  nearly  an  hour  to  one  of  the  ablest  presenta¬ 
tions  I  ever  heard  of  how  the  Federal  Government  for  a 
hundred  years  wasted  its  resources  with  all  the  prodigality 
of  a  drunken  sailor.  Trust  the  Federal  Government!  Why, 
the  Federal  Government  has  been  the  greatest  sinner  in  that 
respect.  I  am  glad  the  Federal  Government  has  awakened 
and  is  going  to  preserve  its  resources,  but  Montana,  at  least, 
woke  up  a  little  before.  In  this  matter  of  the  water-power: 
The  most  valuable  use  that  water  can  be  put  to,  or,  in  other 
words,  the  most  valuable  function  that  water  can  perform, 
is  not  the  development  of  electrical  power;  in  the  semi-arid 
States  it  is  the  applying  of  that  water  to  irrigation  and  the 
reclamation  of  the  arid  lands  of  the  West.  So  bear  that  in 
mind. 

In  the  State  of  Montana — and  what  is  true  in  that  State  is 
true  largely  in  every  other  State  in  the  West — not  one-third  of 
the  .arable  lands  that  can  be  irrigated  have  as  yet  been  re¬ 
claimed;  less  than  2,000,000  acres  have  been  reclaimed  in 
Montana,  while  there  are  6,000,000,  in  fact  there  are  10,000,000 
acres  that  can  be  reclaimed.  In  other  words,  there  are  from 


138 


CONSERVATION  OF 


six  to  ten  million  acres  yet  to  be  reclaimed  by  use  of  the 
water  that  Hows  in  the  streams  of  the  State,  and  that  is  large¬ 
ly  Government  land.  So  that  when  you  talk  about  conserv¬ 
ing  the  water  for  water-power  purposes,  we  say  conserve  it 
for  reclamation  purposes;  for  the  reclamation  of  Govern¬ 
ment  land,  too,  that  may  make  homes  for  settlers  who  will 
come  in  and  take  it  under  the  Homestead  Act.  There  is 
the  reason  why  we  say  that  the  Federal  Government  must 
not  by  its  superior  power  step  in  and  insist  upon  using  the 
waters  of  the  streams  of  the  West  for  power  purposes,  un¬ 
less  when  it  so  does  it  makes  provision  that  the  rights  for 
irrigation  purposes  shall  forever  remain  inviolate;  otherwise, 
what  does  it  amount  to,  the  building  of  a  dam  across  the 
stream?  When  the  Government  conveys  the  right  to  build 
a  dam  across  a  stream,  it  means  that  the  amount  of  water 
flowing  over  that  dam  will  determine  the  amount  of  power 
that  may  be  developed;  hence,  when  that  dam  is  built  the 
Government,  if  it  conveys  anything  of  value,  must  convey 
the  right  to  the  use  of  that  water,  and  the  right  to  the  use 
of  that  water  flowing  over  that  dam  must  accrue  as  of  that 
date,  and  forever  thereafter  the  franchise-holder  will  have 
the  right  to  demand  as  a  concession  from  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment  that  the  same  amount  of  water,  all  the  natural  flow 
of  that  stream,  must  go  over  that  dam  forever.  You  there¬ 
by  absolutely  prevent  the  diversion  of  any  water  on  that 
stream  above  that  point  for  irrigation  purposes.  The  use 
of  water  for  irrigation  purposes  does  decrease  the  amount 
flowing  in  the  stream.  That  is  the  reason  we  object  to  the 
Federal  Government  coming  in  and  taking  charge  of  our 
water-power  and  giving  it  out — we  do  not  care  so  much 
about  the  little  income  that'  may  be  received;  that  is  the  rea¬ 
son  we  are  insisting  upon  the  rights  of  the  State. 

Now,  remember  this:  In  the  first  instance,  there  is  no 
contention  but  what  the  regulation  of  water  for  irrigating 
purposes  is  absolutely  vested  in  the  State,  and  that  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government  cannot  acquire  that  right;  hence  a  number 
of  irrigators  have  already  appropriated  a  part  of  the  flow 
of  the  stream.  The  Federal  Government  grants  the  right  of 
franchise  for  the  building  of  a  dam.  Suppose  we  assume,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  that  it  can  grant  the  right  to  the  re- 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


139 


maining  flow  of  a  stream;  it  not  only  thereby  forever  there¬ 
after  prohibits  the  use  of  that  stream  above  that  point  for 
further  reclamation  purposes,  but  the  rights  of  every  irri¬ 
gator,  either  before  or  after  appropriation  is  made,  comes  in 
conflict,  or  may  come  in  conflict,  with  the  Eederal  franchise- 
holder?  In  other  words,  you  transfer  from  the  State  courts 
and  from  the  State  forum  the  right  of  every  irrigator  to  use 
the  waters  of  a  stream  to  the  seat  of  power  of  the  Federal 
Government  at  Washington.  In  other  words,  you  practically 
stop  irrigation  in  the  arid  West  when  you  insist  upon  having 
that  power.  Is  that  conservation?  True  conservation  de¬ 
mands  that  every  acre  of  land  shall  be  used  for  its  highest 
purpose  and  be  made  to  serve  its  highest  productive  function, 
whether  in  a  forest  reserve  or  out  of  it.  Therefore,  in  order 
to  serve  its  highest  productive  function  in  the  West,  water 
must  be  applied  to  the  land. 

Now,  take  the  6,000,000  acres  of  land  that  may  be  re¬ 
claimed  in  Montana.  If  you  do  not  insist  upon  the  Federal 
Government  taking  charge  of  the  water-power  and  prevent¬ 
ing  its  further  reclamation,  it  means  6,000,000  acres  of  land 
reclaimed.  It  is  fair  to  say  that  each  year  those  reclaimed 
lands  will  produce  a  total  of  $25- — yea,  and  if  I  did  not  want 
to  be  ultra-conservative,  I  would  say  $50 — per  acre;  and  at 
$25  per  acre,  you  have  an  annual  income  from  those  6,000,000 
acres  of  land  of  $150,000,000.  Isn’t  that  worth  thinking 
about?  Isn’t  that  a  resource  worth  conserving?  Why,  the 
6,000,000  horse-power  that  might  be  developed  in  Montana 
is  not  worth  one  tithe  of  that.  You  say,  Give  to  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government  the  right  to  the  water-powers  of  the  State 
and  forever  prevent  the  further  reclamation  of  our  land? 
Why,  you  are  asking  of  us  the  most  priceless  gift  that  we 
have  to  convey — far  more  priceless  than  our  mines  yielding 
$50,000,000  yearly,  possibly  the  richest  in  the  world — because 
you  ask  us  to  surrender  not  $50,000,000  a  year  but  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  make  $150,000,000  a  year.  Has  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  this  right?  We  insist,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  the 
Federal  Government  has  no  authority  to  grant  any  right  to 
the  use  of  water  on  any  power  site  that  it  may  have.  If  the 
power  site  is  situated  along  a  stream,  the  title  to  the  power 
site  rests  in  the  Federal  Government  and  it  can  grant  the 


140 


CONSERVATION  OF 


right  to  erect  a  dam  on  that  site,  but  the  water  that  flows 
down  the  stream  by  that  power  site  belongs  to  the  State, 
and  unless  the  State  gives  you  the  right  to  appropriate  and 
take  water  you  will  develop  no  power  by  a  damsite! 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

Pages  72-5.  Bryant  Butler  Brooks. 

A  few  years  ago  the  western  Governors  held  a  meeting 
at  Salt  Lake  City,  and  spent  two  days  discussing  this  ques¬ 
tion  of  conservation.  After  full  and  complete  discussion 
they  adopted,  unanimously,  a  brief  set  of  resolutions,  which 
I  think  express  their  views  in  this  important  matter.  Colo¬ 
rado,  Utah,  California,  Washington,  Oregon,  Idaho,  Montana, 
and  Wyoming-  were  represented;  and  since  the  resolutions, 
which  have  been  published  in  all  the  western  papers,  have 
met  with  unqualified  public  endorsement,  and  as  it  will  only 
take  me  about  a  minute,  I  am  going  to  read  them,  as  em¬ 
bodying  the  views  of  the  western  Governors — and,  I  might 
add,  of  95  percent  of  the  citizens  of  the  great  western 
States: 

Resolved,  that  the  Governors  of  the  Rocky  Mountain  and  Pa¬ 
cific  Coast  States  affirm  as  a  platform  of  principles  to  be  urged 
upon  the  National  Conservation  Congress  to  be  held  at  Saint  Paul, 
September  5-9,  1910 — 

First,  that  In  legislatively  solving  the  problem  of  conservation 
the  National  Congress  adhere  to  the  doctrine  of  Abraham  Lin¬ 
coln  that  the  public  lands  are  an  impermanent  national  posses¬ 
sion,  held  in  trust  for  the  maturing  States. 

Right  on  that  point,  I  wish  to  refer  to  the  splendid  paper 
read  here  at  the  opening  of  this  afternoon’s  session  by  that 
brilliant,  honest,  and  patriotic  statesman,  Senator  Nelson, 
outlining  the  public  land  laws.  I  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  at  the  beginning  of  this  great  Nation  of  ours  the 
Federal  Government  acquired,  by  cession  from  the  States,  by 
treaties  with  the  Indians,  and  by  purchase  and  conquest,  all 
this  vast  public-land  territory,  the  early  idea  being  that  this 
public  domain  was  to  be  sold  for  the  payment  of  the  Revo¬ 
lutionary  War  debt  and  for  the  running  expenses  of  the 
Government;  though  that  early  idea  was  quickly  transformed 
and  changed,  owing  to  the  insistent  demand  of  the  settlers, 
and  the  pre-emption  laws  (with  which  you  are  all  familiar) 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


141 

followed  as  the  second  step.  They  were  a  sort  of  settle¬ 
ment  and  revenue  measure  combined;  but  still  the  insistent 
demand  of  the  settlers  would  not  stop,  and  gradually  we 
reached  that  stage,  where  the  homestead  law  was  passed,  and 
signed  by  Abraham  Lincoln  in  1862,  giving  the  settlers  160 
acres  of  land  as  the  result  of  settlement  and  cultivation, 
doing  away  entirely  with  the  old  revenue  idea;  and  under 
that  one  law  this  great  State  of  Minnesota,  and  every 
other  State  in  this  central  country,  has  developed  to  a  degree 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  human  progress.  Now,  all  the 
West  asks  is  an  even  break;  all  the  West  asks  is  an  equal 
opportunity.  How  can  we  educate  our  children,  how  can  we 
maintain  good  government  and  good  law,  how  can  we  do  all 
those  necessary  and  essential  things  to  maintain  a  high  state 
of  civilization  and  progress,  if  over  one-half  of  the  State  is 
to  be  held  permanently  as  a  Federal  resource,  giving  no  tax¬ 
ation  or  revenue  whatever  to  the  support  of  our  State  gov¬ 
ernments?  It  is  utterly  impossible.  We  of  the  West  are 
just  as  bitterly  opposed  to  monopoly,  just  as  bitterly  opposed 
to  any  misuse  of  the  natural  resources  of  this  country  as  any 
of  you  gentlemen  here  assembled;  but  we  do  believe  that 
the  States  themselves  can  in  a  great  measure  work  out  the 
safest  and  best  conservation.  I  might  get  started  here  and 
go  on  talking,  and  I  do  not  want  to  do  it;  I  want  to  read  the 
other  resolutions: 

Second,  that  State  government,  no  less  beneficently  than  Na¬ 
tional  Government,  is  capable  of  devising  and  administering  laws 
for  the  conservation  of  public  property;  and  that  the  National  and 
State  governments  should  legislatively  coordinate  to  the  end  that 
within  a  reasonable  period  of  time  the  State  governments  be  con¬ 
ceded  full  and  complete  administration  of  such  conservation  laws 
as  may  be  found  adaptable  to  the  varying  conditions  of  the  several 
States. 

The  idea  being  that  conditions  vary  so  tremendously — • 
just  as  you  have  heard  from  the  Governor  of  Mississippi  and 
the  Governor  of  Illinois,  the  latter  of  whom  told  you  about 
a  monopoly  stepping  in  and  stopping  the  State  development 
of  the  water-power  along  one  of  their  streams.  Such  a  con¬ 
dition  is  absolutely  impossible  in  the  West,  because  that  old 
law  'of  riparian  rights  does  not  apply;  there  is  no  law  in  the 
West  whereby  we  are  compelled  to  allow  the  water  in  the. 
streams  to  flow  by  your  property  undiminished  in  quantity 
and  undefiled  in  quality.  In  the  West  the  law  of  appropria- 


142 


CONSERVATION  OF 


tion  applies,  the  law  of  use.  Under  the  Constitution  of  Wy¬ 
oming,  granted  twenty  years  ago,  we  were  given  all  the 
water  of  the  State,  everywhere  and  every  place;  we 
cannot  part  title  with  it,  we  hold  it,  and  we  will  always  hold 
it.  Talk  about  monopoly!  How  absolutely  impossible,  under 
the  laws  of  Wyoming!  We  have  used  this  water  wisely  and 
well.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  to  get  a  monopoly  of 
water-power  in  the  State  of  Wyoming,  and  such  an  instance 
as  referred  to  by  the  Governor  of  Illinois  would  be  impos¬ 
sible.  The  State  of  Wyoming  could  simply  refuse  to  allow 
that  company  to  use  one  drop  of  water;  they  have  the  power 
to  do  it,  it  is  so  provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  just  as 
the  State  of  Wyoming,  if  it  chose,  could  absolutely  refuse  to 
permit  the  general  Government  itself  to  use  one  drop  of 
water  for  power  purposes.  We  have  never  had  any  power 
monopoly  in  the  State  of  Wyoming,  and  we  do  not  intend 
to  have. 

Third,  that  experience  of  the  conservation  States  demonstrates 
that  dispositions  of  public  property  made  under  existing  national 
conservation  laws  and  regulations  have  tended  to  intrench  monop¬ 
olies  and  interests  menacing  the  common  welfare;  and  that  modi¬ 
fications  of  such  laws  and  regulations  should  be  promoted  by  the 
Conservation  Congress. 

Our  great  President  this  morning  stated  a  great  truth, 
and  it  came  right  to  the  hearts  of  the  western  people.  You 
can’t  understand  it  -  here,  perhaps,  but  we  realize  the  im¬ 
portance  of  conservation;  but  we  have  been  talked  to  death 
on  it.  What  zee  zvant  is  action!  We  want  the  people  to  get 
busy;  we  do  not  want  all  these  things  bottled  up  in  cold 
storage;  we  want  them  used  for  the  generation  of  today. 
That  is  the  important  thing.  As  it  is  now  in  Wyoming, 
every  big  coal  company  in  the  State  is  adding  an  increased 
price  to  its  coal  to  the  consumer,  who  is  already  burdened 
beyond  the  point  of  endurance,  simply  because  there  is  no 
further  development  in  these  coal  lands  as  they  stand  today 
under  the  withdrawals;  every  ranchman  in  the  State  of 
Wyoming  is  paying  ten  dollars  a  thousand  more  for  his  lum¬ 
ber  than  he  had  to  a  few  years  ago — ten  years  ago,  five 
years  ago — owing  to  the  fact  that  development  has  ceased. 
The  only  monopolies  that  we  are  troubled  with  out  there 
are  those  that  are  unable  to  appraise  their  capital  at  present 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


M3 


simply  because  competition  cannot  come  up  and  meet  them 
on  the  markets  under  present  conditions. 

Fourth,  that  the  elimination  from  the  forest  reserves  of  all 
homestead  and  untimbered  grazing  lands  is  immediately  expedient. 

Fifth,  the  use  and  control  of  all  water-power  inheres  of  right 
in  the  States,  within  restrictions  insuring  perpetual  freedom  from 
monopoly. 

Sixth,  that  the  privilege  of  American  citizens  to  seek  and  de¬ 
velop  mineral  wealth  wherever  it  may  be  found  should  be  fully 
amplified  and  secured  by  laws. 

Seventh,  that  the  idea  of  deriving  Federal  revenue  from  the 
physical  resources  of  the  States  is  repugnant  to  that  adjustment 
of  constitutional  powers  which  guarantee  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Union. 

And  with  only  one  thought  more  I  leave  you:  If  the 
western  States,  never  having  had  the  opportunity  so  far  to 
develop  their  great  natural  resources  as  you  people  of  the 
East  have,  as  Minnesota  and  the  Atlantic  States  have,  are 
now  to  be  changed  entirely  from  the  time-honored  policy 
that  has  made  these  States  great  and  powerful;  if  now  we 
are  to  be  taxed,  as  we  have  been,  $150,000  a  year  for  the 
forest-reserve  grazing  privileges,  when  that  same  money  is 
used  in  the  great  Empire  State  for  forest  protection  free  of 
cost,  then  we  of  the  West  have  a  hard  row  to  hoe.  We 
simply  ask  the  same  fair  treatment  as  accorded  every  central 
and  eastern  State  of  the  Union.  It  is  not  right  to  tax  the 
West  for  anything  which  you  would  not  apply  in  one  of  the 
great  eastern  States.  We  want  our  resources  protected,  we 
want  them  safeguarded  for  our  children  and  our  children's 
children,  but  we  want  the  opportunity  to  make  our  young 
States  grow  and  be  prosperous,  so  that  we  of  the  West  will 
have  those  things  of  which  we  can  be  as  proud  as  you  people 
of  Minnesota  are  when  you  take  a  gentleman  to  your  mag¬ 
nificent  State  Capitol,  to  your  great  Agricultural  College, 
and  to  your  other  great  schools — we  want  the  same  for  our 
children  and  our  children’s  children,  without  Federal  inter¬ 
ference. 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

•  Pages  177-88.  James  J.  Hill. 

To  pack  the  fact  into  a  single  statement,  the  need  of 
the  hour  and  the  end  to  which  this  Congress  should  devote 


144 


CONSERVATION  OF 


itself  is  to  conserve  conservation.  It  has  come  into  that 
peril  which  no  great  truth  escapes — the  danger  that  lurks 
in  the  house  of  its  friends.  It  has  been  used  to  forward  that 
serious  error  of  policy,  the  extension  of  the  powers  and 
activities  of  the  National  Government  at  the  expense  of 
those  of  the  States.  The  time  is  ripe  and  this  occasion  is 
most  fitting  for  distinguishing  between  real  and  fanciful 
Conservation,  and  for  establishing  a  sound  relation  of  means 
to  ends. 

We  should  first  exclude  certain  activities  that  come  only 
indirectly  under  the  term,  “conservation.”  The  Reclamation 
Service  is  one.  Its  work  is  not  preservation,  but  utilization. 
The  arid  lands  of  this  country  have  been  where  they*now  are, 
the  streams  have  flowed  past  them  uselessly  ever  since  Adam 
and  Eve  were  in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  Irrigation  was  practiced 
in  prehistoric  time.  What  we  have  to  do  is  to  bring  modern 
methods  to  the  aid  of  one  of  the  oldest  agricultural  arts.  It 
is  mentioned  here  because  its  progress  illustrates  the  dangers 
that  beset  conservation  projects  proper.  They  are  dangers 
inseparable  from  National  control  and  conduct  of  affairs. 
The  machine  is  too  big  and  too  distant;  its  operation  is  slow, 
cumbrous,  and  costly.  So  slow  is  it  that  settlers  are  waiting 
in  distress  for  water  promised  long  ago.  So  faulty  has  been 
the  adjustment  of  time  and  money  that  Congress  has  had 
to  authorize  the  issue  of  $20,000,000  of  National  obligations 
to  complete  projects  still  hanging  in  the  air.  So  expensive 
is  it  that  estimates  have  been  exceeded  again  and  again.  The 
settler  has  had  either  to  pay  more  than  the  cost  figured  he  re¬ 
lied  on  or  seek  cheaper  land  in  Canada.  It  costs  the  Govern¬ 
ment  from  50  percent  more  to  twice  as  much  as  it  would 
private  enterprise  to  put  water  on  the  land.  Under  the 
Lower  Yellowstone  project  the  charge  is  $42.50  per  acre, 
and  one  dollar  per  acre  annually  for  maintenance.  The  Sun- 
nyside  project  carries  a  charge  of  $52  per  acre,  and  95  cents 
maintenance.  Under  the  North  Platte  project  the  charge 
is  $45  per  acre,  plus  a  maintenance  charge  not  announced. 
These  projects,  in  widely  separated  localities,  entail  a  land 
charge  prohibitive  to  the  frontier  settlers  to  provide  homes 
for  those  for  whom  this  work  was  believed  to  have  been  un¬ 
dertaken.  The  pioneer  settler  who  can  pay,  even  in  ten  annual 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


145 


installments,  from  $3,500  to  $4,000  for  eighty  acres  of  land, 
in  addition  to  the  yearly  fee  per  acre,  must  have  some  other 
resources  to  aid  him.  The  work  of  irrigation  would  have 
been  more  cheaply  done  if  turned  over  to  private  enterprise 
or  committed  to  the  several  States  within  which  lie  the 
lands  to  be  reclaimed.  This  is  not  a  criticism  upon  any  in¬ 
dividual.  It  is  merely  one  more  proof  of  the  excessive  cost 
of  Government  work. 

Toward  the  conservation  of  our  mineral  resources  little 
can  be  done  by  Eederal  action.  The  output  is  determined 
not  by  the  mine  owner,  but  by  the  consumer.  The  with¬ 
drawal  of  vast  areas  of  supposed  coal  lands  tends  to  in¬ 
crease,  price  by  restricting  the  area  of  possible  supply.  Nor 
can  such  deposits  be  utilized  eventually  except  under  some 
such  system  as  is  now  employed.  It  is  foolish  to  talk  of  leas¬ 
ing  coal  lands  in  small  quantities  in  order  to  prevent  monop¬ 
oly.  Mining  must  be  carried  on  upon  a  large  enough  scale  to 
be  commercially  possible.  The  lessee  of  a  small  area  could 
not  afford  to  install  the  necessary  machinery  and  provide 
means  of  transportation  without  charging  for  the  product 
a  prohibitory  price.  The  land  should  not  be  leased  by  the 
acre,  but  by  the  quantity  of  coal  contained  in  the  land.  A 
vein  four  feet  thick  contains  about  4,000  tons  to  the  acre; 
in  many  fields  there  are  three,  four,  five,  and  six  veins  con¬ 
taining  from  fifteen  to  thirty  feet  of  coal,  or  from  fifteen  to 
thirty  thousand  tons  to  the  acre.  What  we  want  is  intelli¬ 
gent  understanding  of  the  situation.  Under  too  restrictive 
conditions  the  coal  would  remain  in  the  ground  indefinitely. 
The  people  of  the  West  see  little  practical  difference  be¬ 
tween  a  resource  withheld  entirely  from  use  and  a  resource 
dissipated  or  exhausted.  They  understand  by  conservation 
the  most  economical  development  and  best  care  of  resources. 
It  is  the  only  definition  consistent  with  the  natural  growth 
of  communities  in  the  history  of  the  civilized  world. 

The  prairie  States  are  more  interested  than  any  other  in 
the  question  of  cheap  fuel.  We  do  not  depend  on  Alaska  for 
our  future  supply.  There  is  abundant  coal  on  the  Pacific 
Coast  nearer  to  our  seaports  and  commercial  centers.  Van¬ 
couver  Island  is  underlain  with  it;  today  while  the  railroad 
companies  with  which  I  am  connected  bought  coal  lands  on 


146 


CONSERVATION  OF 


Puget  Sound,  which  they  still  own,  we  are  prepared  to  burn 
oil  from  California  instead  of  coal.  I  speak  of  that  as  a 
practical  reason  why  we  should,  before  we  leap,  look  to  see 
what  the  actual  conditions  are.  Then,  to  say  nothing  of 
Nova  Scotia  on  the  Eastern  coast,  there  is  coal  in  Spits¬ 
bergen,  within  the  Arctic  Circle,  actually  nearer  our  Eastern 
markets  than  the  coal  of  Alaska.  While  we  lament  the  ex¬ 
haustion  of  our  coal  supply,  we  maintain  a  tariff  that  compels 
us  to  draw  upon  it  continuously.  It  would  be  well  to  cast 
out  this  beam  before  we  worry  too  much  over  the  conservation 
mote. 

The  iron  deposits  of  Minnesota,  the  most  wonderful  in 
the  world,  are  today  not  only  furnishing  industry  in  the  Na¬ 
tion  with  its  raw  material,  but  are  piling  up  a  school  fund 
at  home  that  is  the  envy  of  other  States  and  adding  more 
and  more  every  year  to  the  contents  of  the  State  treasury. 
Minnesota  is  considering  the  reduction  of  her  general  tax 
levy  by  one-half.  Would  it  be  better  if  these  lands  were 
today  held  idle  and  unproductive  by  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment,  or  worked  only  on  leases  whose  proceeds  went  into 
the  Federal  treasury  and  enabled  Congress  to  scpiander  a 
few  more  millions  in  annual  appropriations? 

The  attempted  Federal  control  of  water-powers  is  illegal, 
because  the  use  of  the  waters  within  a  State  is  the  property 
of  the  State  and  cannot  be  taken  from  it,  and  that  the 
State  may  and  actually  does,  in  the  case  of  Idaho  for  ex¬ 
ample,  perfectly  safeguard  its  water-powers  from  monopoly 
and  make  them  useful  without  extortion  has  been  shown 
conclusively  by  Senator  Borah  in  a  speech  in  the  United 
States  Senate  in  which  this  whole  subject  is  admirably  cov¬ 
ered.  Back  in  our  history  beyond  the  memory  of  most  men 
now  living  there  was  the  same  controversy  over  the  public 
domain.  Ought  it  to  be  administered  by  the  Government 
and  disposed  of  for  its  profit,  or  opened  to  the  people  and 
shared  with  the  States?  Fet  experience  determine  which 
was  the  better  guardian.  The  worst  scandals  of  State  land 
misappropriation,  and  there  were  many,  are  insignificant 
when  compared  with  the  record  of  the  Nation.  .The  total  cash 
receipts  of  the  Federal  Government  from  the  disposal  of  public 
and  Indian  lands  from  1785  to  1909  were  $423,451,673.  The 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


M7 


money  is  gone.  It  has  been  expended,  wisely  or  unwisely, 
with  other  treasury  receipts.  It  would  be  interesting  to 
know  how  much  the  above  sum  exceeded  the  cost  of  ad¬ 
ministration.  To  go  back  125  years  and  dig  up  the  cost  of 
the  administration  of  public  lands  would  be  more  of  a  task 
than  I  have  time  for,  but  I  took  the  last  report  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Government,  and  in  the  disbursements  of  the  Interior 
Department  I  found  that  the  cost  of  administering  the  public 
lands  was  in  1007  $17,421,000,  in  1908  $15,190,000,  in  1909 
$14,441,000.  Now  if  we  take  the  entire  proceeds  of  all  the 
public  lands  sold,  including  the  Indian  lands,  it  averages 
$3,400,000  a  year  for  the  125  years  during  which  it  has  been 
sold;  and  we  find  here  that  the  cost  of  administering  the 
greatly  reduced  estate  is  from  three  to  five  times  as  much 
as  the  total  receipts  would  average.  But  certain  limited 
areas  of  lands  were  conveyed  to  the  States  for  educational 
purposes.  The  permanent  common  school  funds,  State  and 
local,  conserved  by  the  States,  amount  to  $246,943,349.  The 
estimated  value  of  productive  school  lands  today  is  $138,851,- 
634,  and  of  unproductive  $86,347,482.  Add  to  these  the  land 
grant  funds  of  colleges  of  agriculture  and  the  mechanic  arts, 
and  the  total  is  merely  half  a  billion  dollars.  To  what  mag¬ 
nitude  these  great  funds,  now  jealously  guarded  for  educa¬ 
tional  purposes  by  the  States,  may  grow  in  time  we  cannot 
even  guess.  Some  may  eventually  provide  amply  for  all 
educational  needs  of  their  States  forever.  This  is  one  telling- 
proof  of  the  superior  fidelity  of  the  commonwealth  as 
custodian  of  any  trust  for  future  generations. 

Experience  proves  that  resources  are  not  only  best  ad¬ 
ministered  but  best  protected  from  marauders  by  the 
home  people  who  are  most  deeply  interested  and  who  are 
just  as  honest,  just  as  patriotic  and  infinitely  better  informed 
on  local  conditions  than  the  National  Government  can  pos¬ 
sibly  be.  It  is  clear  that  every 'one  of  the  many  problems  all 
over  the  country  can  be  better  understood  where  they  are 
questions  of  the  lives  and  happiness  of  those  directly  inter¬ 
ested.' 

Behind  this,  as  behind  every  great  economic  issue,  stand 
moral  issues.  Shall  we,  on  the  one  side,  deny  to  ourselves 
and  our  children  access  to  the  same  store  of  natural  wealth 


148 


CONSERVATION  OF 


by  which  we  have  won  our  own  prosperity,  or,  on  the  other, 
leave  it  unprotected  as  in  the  past  against  the  spoiler  and 
the  thief?  Shall  we  abandon  everything  to  centralized  au¬ 
thority,  going  the  way  of  every  lost  and  ruined  government 
in  the  history  of  the  world,  or  meet  our  personal  duty  by 
personal  labor  through  the  organs  of  local  self-government, 
not  yet  wholly  atrophied  by  disuse? 


Second  National  Conservation  Congress,  Proceedings. 

Pages  226-37.  Frank  H.  Short. 

As  briefly  as  I  may,  and  seriously  as  I  can,  I  will  state 
the  situation  that  confronts  the  people  of  the  West,  the  poor 
man  and  the  capitalist  alike,  in  connection  with  the  forest 
reserve.  Forest  reserves  were  authorized  by  Congress  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  forests  and  conserving  the  source 
of  supply  of  streams.  Probably  one-third  of  the  200,000,000 
acres  that  have  been  set  apart  in  forest  reserves  in  the  west¬ 
ern  one-third  of  the  United  States  are  reasonably  necessary 
and  suited  to  these  purposes.  As  to  the  other  two-thirds, 
they  were  largely  included — and  in  some  instances  this  is 
frankly  admitted — for  the  purpose  of  authority  for  Govern¬ 
ment  control,  to  include  pasture  lands,  power-sites,  irrigation 
projects,  and  the  like.  If  forest  reserves  had  been  created 
to  meet  the  actual  necessity  which  brought  them  into  exist¬ 
ence,  and  if  they  had  been  administered  with  due  deference 
to  the  rights  of  the  State  within  which  they  are  situated,  to 
improve  and  develop  its  resources  without  restraint,  to  con¬ 
struct  or  authorize  to  be  constructed  roads  and  highways, 
railroads,  telephone  and  telegraph  lines,  canals  and  ditches 
for  the  beneficial  use  of  water,  and  the  functions  of  local  self- 
government  had  not  been  assumed  to  the  Federal  authorities 
and  denied  to  the  local  authorities,  I  could  conceive  of  no 
reason  why  the  forestry  policy  could  not  have  been  carried 
out  with  great  credit  and  some  profit  to  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  and  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  the  district  in  which  the 
forests  are  situated.  The  pity  of  it  all  is  that  this  has  not 
been  done.  We  are  told  that  the  sentiment  in  opposition  to 
transferring  from  the  States  to  the  Federal  Government 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


149 


important  functions  of  regulation  and  control  is  not  unani¬ 
mous.  This  is  true  as  to  districts  not  directly  affected 
by  the  forest  reserves;  but  as  to  the  people  within  and  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  forest  reserves,  in  other  words,  as  to  those 
who  have  come  directly  or  indirectly  in  contact  with  bureau¬ 
cratic  government,  the  sentiment  is  about  as  unanimous  as 
ever  existed  in  America. 

That  the  Forester  and  those  under  him  honestly  desire  to 
benefit  the  people,  especially  “the  poor,  small  man,”  we  need 
not  deny;  that  the  actual  results  have  been  beneficial,  how¬ 
ever,  wre  wholly  deny.  The  imperial  dominion  withdrawn 
includes  territory  as  large  as  20  or  30  average-size  eastern 
States,  amounting  frequently  to  one-fifth  or  one-fourth,  and 
sometimes  even  exceeding  the  latter  fraction  of  the  territorv 
within  a  State,  and  practically  taking  over  and  paralyzing 
local  self-government  in  certain  entire  districts  of  a  State. 
These  lands  are,  and  if  the  policy  continues  will  remain  for¬ 
ever,  withdrawn  from  State  taxation  and  revenue,  and  instead 
will  become  a  source  of  expense  and  burden.  First,  consid¬ 
ering  the  prime  purpose  to  preserve  and  protect  the  forest, 
what  has  been  the  result?  The  Forester  and  those  under  him 
have  my  profound  sympathy  in  connection  with  the  recent 
awful  destructive  forest  fires  and  the  heroic  way  in  which  the 
disaster  was  met,  even  though  it  was  not  overcome. 

For  many  years  experienced  and  practical  men  in  the  West 
have  protested  against  the  policies  pursued.  Previous  to  the 
establishment  of  the  forest  reserves  the  land  was  pastured 
by  sheep  and  cattle,  admittedly  in  some  instances  over¬ 
pastured.  Frequent  fires  ran  through  the  country,  but  in 
most  instances  as  the  country  had  been  closely  pastured  off 
and  fires  had  usually  recently  occurred,  these  fires  did  only  in¬ 
cidental  harm,  and  in  a  general  way  the  great  forests  of  the 
West  in  many  districts — although  the  result  of  mere  natural 
processes — as  valuable  and  magnificent  as  there  are  in  the 
world,  were  retained  in  their  primitive  and  perfect  condition. 
For  a  good  many  years  now  exactly  the  reverse  of  this 
primitive  condition  has  prevailed.  Sheep  have  been  ex¬ 
cluded  and  cattle  have  been  limited;  falling  and  decaying 
timber,  the  growth  of  vegetation  from  year  to  year,  and  the 
accumulation  of  underbrush  and  debris  have  continued;  and 


150 


CONSERVATION  OF 


we  have  gone  on  conserving  our  forests  in  such  a  way  that 
we  have  been  accumulating  fuel  and  the  elements  of  destruc¬ 
tion,  piling  up  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath,  until  the  fires, 
in  spite  of  precautions,  have  started,  and  the  destruction  that 
has  resulted  is  inevitable.  What  is  needed  now  in  this  par¬ 
ticular  is  a  surgeon  who  has  the  nerve  to  amputate  the  con¬ 
ditions  that  create  fire,  and  until  this  is  done  the  danger  will 
go  oil  increasing  from  year  to  year  and  more  destruction 
than  benefits  will  inevitably  result.  To  those  who  suggest 
that  a  sufficient  patrol  will  prevent  fires,  I  respond  that  they 
ought  to  try  the  experiment  of  filling  a  building  with  powder, 
putting  an  ample  guard  around  it,  and  touching  a  match  to  it. 

These  great  reserves  have  been  practically  closed  to  set¬ 
tlement  and  homesteading.  The  price  of  pasturage  has  been 
increased,  the  number  of  cattle  and  sheep  pastured  has  been 
diminished,  and  the  price  of  meat  correspondingly  advanced. 
The  price  of  stumpage  has  been  doubled  and  trebled,  no 
small  mills  have  been  or  can  be  successfully  started,  and  the 
price  of  lumber  to  consumers  has  been  increased.  The 
policy  has  limited  the  construction  of  canals  and  other  ap¬ 
pliances  for  irrigation,  and  still  more  effectually  limited  the 
construction  of  like  appliances  for  the  diversion  of  water 
for  the  development  of  electric  power.  If  this  water  could 
be  diverted  for  irrigation  and  electric  power  under  State 
laws  without  other  restraint,  the  quantity  available  in  the 
majority  of  the  western  States  is  so  great  that  the  supply 
would  exceed  the  demand,  the  price  would  be  lower,  the  con¬ 
sumption  greater,  and  in  every  way  the  people  would  be 
benefited.  The  country  would  be  settled,  the  people  would 
be  more  prosperous,  the  supply  of  water  and  electricity 
would  be  more  abundant  and  cheaper,  and  all  of  the  people 
and  all  of  the  industries  would  be  correspondingly  more 
prosperous. 

The  situation  might  be  illustrated  by  this  simple  state¬ 
ment:  Uncle  Sam  may  be  assumed  to  be  the  father  of  four 
sons;  we  will  name  them  East,  North,  South,  and  West. 
Uncle  Samuel  being  liberal  to  a  fault  and  mindful  of  a  trust, 
has  transferred  to  his  three  elder  sons,  East,  North,  and 
South,  all  of  their  share  in  his  estate.  But  these  elder  sons, 
especially  after  their  industrious  younger  brother  has  begun 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


15 1 


to  show  the  real  value  of  his  portion  of  their  father’s  estate, 
begin  to  look  with  covetous  eyes  upon  the  younger  brother’s 
inheritance,  Finally  a  deep  sense  of  justice  begins  to  per¬ 
vade  the  minds  of  East,  North,  and  South,  and  they  appear 
before  Uncle  Samuel  and  say,  “Father,  you  have  been,  very 
profligate  in  the  management  of  your  great  estate.  You 
have  turned  over  to  us  and  to  our  children  without  needful 
restriction  the  whole  of  the  proportion  that  we  can  rightfully 
claim.  I11  the  doing  of  this  you  have  shown  great  incompe¬ 
tency  and  have  practiced  many  faults,  and  behold,  you  have 
sinned  against  Heaven  and  in  the  sight  of  men.  We  can  see 
no  way  of  atoning  for  this  awful  offense  except  that  you 
shall  take  and  hold  that  portion  of  the  estate  that  should 
descend  to  our  younger  brother  for  the  benefit  of  all  your 
children.  And  as  a  further  atonement,  having  shown  in  the 
distribution  of  your  estate  to  us  that  you  are  dishonest  and 
incompetent  in  the  last  degree,  in  consideration  thereof  we 
will  nominate  and  appoint  you  the  landlord  and  guardian, 
without  bonds  and  forever,  of  that  portion  of  the  estate  that, 
except  for  this  atonement,  would  have  belonged  to  our 
younger  brother;  requiring  you,  however,  to  see  to  it  with 
scrupulous  care  that  we,  your  elder  sons,  shall  receive  from 
the  rents,  leases,  and  profits  of  this  estate  our  equal  shares 
with  our  beloved  younger  brother.’’  *  Painful  as  it  may  seem, 
these  elder  brothers  seem  well  nigh  unanimous  as  to  this 
scheme  of  atonement,  and  Uncle  Samuel  seems  weak  and 
subject  to  the  influence  of  the  majority.  History,  however, 
will  record  that  the  Constitution  broke  the  will  and  the 
elder  brothers  were  charged  with  the  costs  and  counsel  fees. 

About  the  only  argument  that  is  made  in  favor  of  Federal 
control  and  against  local  self-government  in  the  West  is 
that  the  corporations  appear  to  prefer  the  former.  The  ques¬ 
tion  is  not  what  the  corporations  prefer  but  what  the  Con¬ 
stitution  requires;  and,  in  the  next  place,  the  corporations  do 
not  deny  the  authority  of  the  States  because  they  are  advised 
that  they  cannot  and  therefore  should  not  attempt  to  do  so, 
and,  because  they  are  advised  that  they  must  in  any  event 
submit  to  local  self-government  and  that  Federal  control 
would  lie  an  additional  and  not  a  lawful  but  a  wholly  un¬ 
authorized  usurpation  of  authority.  The  American  people, 


152 


CONSERVATION  OF 


of  all  people  in  the  world,  have  earned  the  reputation  of 
being  the  most  obedient  to  law  and  the  least  submissive  to 
usurpation  of  an}^  people  in  the  world.  If  some  of  our 
wealthy  men  and  some  of  our  corporations  have  offended 
against  honesty  and  attempted  to  circumvent,  misapply,  and 
misuse  the  law,  these  are  instances  to  be  regretted,  con¬ 
demned,  and  punished.  The  practice  should  be  abandoned, 
and  if  not  abandoned  rigorously  prevented;  having  it,  how¬ 
ever,  religiously  in  mind  that  ultimate  justice  can  be  done  and 
the  law  vindicated  only  by  adhering  to  due  process  of  law. 

We  are  told  that  Switzerland  as  a  Nation  regulates  and 
manages  its  own  power  business.  Since,  however,  Switzer¬ 
land  has  no  more  authority  or  powers  of  government  than 
California,  Colorado,  or  New  York,  and  since  it  is  probably 
one-tenth  the  size  of  these  States  and  its  cantons  are  about 
the  size  of  an  ordinary  western  school  district,  this  would 
not  appear  to  indicate  any  reason  why  the  western  States  of 
the  Union  could  not  successfully  carry  out  the  same  function 
of  government. 

Our  former  President  has  said  to  us  that  lie  would  be 
as  swift  to  prevent  injustice  and  unwarranted  uprising  against 
property  as  anyone.  This  I  do  not  doubt,  and  I  am  pre¬ 
pared  to  agree  that  probably  no  one  living  could  perform  the 
task  more  cheerfully  or  effectively;  but  in  this  connection 
it  might  not  be  improper  to  reflect  that  the  people  have  been 
taught,  and  rightly  so,  that  this  is  “a  government  of  law 
and  not  of  men,”  and  we  rely  upon  the  equal  and  continued 
protection  of  the  law  for  the  protection  of  our  persons  and 
our  property,  not  upon  the  life  or  disposition  of  any  man. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  assertion  that  the  re¬ 
maining  resources  of  the  Federal  Government  belong  to  all 
the  people  and  are  to  be  administered  and  revenues  obtained 
for  their  full  benefit.  We  are  not,  however,  deluded  with  the 
thought  that  we  are  to  begin  to  draw  individual  dividends. 
The  revenues  thus  obtained  are  to  go  into  the  Federal  treas¬ 
ury  (and  allow  me  parenthetically  to  suggest  that  the  pay¬ 
roll  will  not  be  far  behind  the  earnings),  but  if  through  some 
oversight  a  balance  should  be  found  in  favor  of- all  the  people 
it  will  go  into  the  Federal  treasury  to  reduce  taxation  to 
the  common  benefit.  Allow  me  to  suggest,  and  ask  all 


NATURAL  RESOURCES 


153 


thoughtful  people  to  well  consider,  that  if  sufficient  revenues 
were  collected  and  paid  into  the  Federal  treasury  to  prove 
of  great  benefit  to  a  hundred  millions  of  people,  the  collec¬ 
tion  and  payment  of  these  same  revenues  will  of  necessity 
amount  to  some  slight  imposition  and  burden  upon  the  ten 
millions  of  people  when  they  are  paid  out  of  their  resources 
and  revenues. 


Date  Due 

2-2-7-ai" 

7C  # 

/ 


